Heres a good discussion of evidence: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/delanoy.pdf So you're claiming that universities continue to fund studies of a field that has been more or less disproven? Name one other field that has been studied for over 100 years that has been disproven that universities continue to fund the studies of. As afar as the nobel goes, just look at the history of science, any time something doesn't fit in with the current status quo (in this case scientifc materialism) it is very slow to be accepted and always ridiculed. The main problem about why psi is controversial is not because the evidence is lacking but because it would require a paradigm shift. Just look at the history of scientific revolutions, there is always massive resistance against them.
empathy is no more supernatural than our senses. Our senses see & hear someone crying, and from that information empathy gets invoked. It's not like their emotions travel through air and into us. Our senses pick up information, and inside of our minds empathy generates.
It looks like Psi tech were making excuses so they would not have to take the Randi challenge. http://www.randi.org/jr/091302.html "As clearly stated in our rules, we design tests so that no "judging" is required. " I don't see the point of the counter challenge.
-Shaman, I can't open that website. One of the criticisms of the Randi challenge is that the rules are inappropriate for the nature of the challenge being studied. Just for instance, if someone had a cooking contest or an olympic ice skating contest people would be pretty confused if you said there would be no judging. What the counter challenge in effect is saying is that the nature of what they can demonstrate (remote viewing) requires judgement (don't automatically dismss this, remember that many things in life require judegement: cooking, olypmics, courtroom, grades). When you do remote viewing a target is selected such as a landmark and then the person draws the target, it's pretty clear how judgement would be required in the instance of a drawing would it not? The purpose of the counter challenge is basically a bet: we will have a panel of impartial judges review the results, if they say we succeeded we get the Randi money, if they say we failed you get our money. Randi, didn't take the counter challenge...in other words Randi becomes much less certain when he's not the one making the rules (not exactly objective science). -Randi is basically asking for someone to come in and be able to always know what number someone else is thinking. If you look at the science thats been done, what the evidence shows is that psi ability is very low and unpredictable but if you do statistical analysis it shows that people know the number (in this example) more than would occur by chance alone. Statistic analysis of these psi tests being due to chance are astronomically low. -If you want to read a good book on remote viewing and judge for yourself check out "Mental Radio" by Upton Sinclair. He did experiments with his wife where he would draw a picture in one room and she would draw what he was in another room. It was enough to convince at least one scientist that something was going on...that scientist: Albert Einstein.
I don't think your judging analogies are valid. If someone was judging then every person who failed the test would then complain that Randi has paid the judges or something. No it is a much better idea if the results are self evident. From the link I posted - "This is to avoid the possibility that persons assigned to judge results might be swayed by their beliefs or prejudices," That jref page should load. I have read too many remote viewing studies where the tester has been very generous with what constitutes a hit. e.g. Mentioning a building is considered a hit when talking about a bus station. Here is Randi's suggested test. This would involve creating a list of 50 targets, all mutually acceptable to those involved, one of which would be randomly chosen and used as the target for a trial. The "RVers" would be provided with the target list, and asked to decide, using their claimed abilities, which target on the list had been randomly chosen. Those evaluating a trial (the retired Superior Court judges?) would simply have to compare the choice with the selection. Arriving at a correct answer would have a chance of one in fifty, by chance alone. Since TRV is said to be so accurate and powerful, this should be no problem at all, and would have to be repeated one more time to provide the minimum one-in-one-thousand (actually one in 2,500) odds. What is wrong with that? What is Spotts afraid of? Does he want judging involved so he has more wiggle room? Psi tech's suggested test is a move away from objective science. Randi did actually respond to psi tech with some requirements. I think he is still waiting for them to reply. When challenged with a test where the results can't be fudged and vague answers can't be distorted into hits they will most likely make a bit of noise but never actually apply. Usually all that is needed is a result significantly greater than chance. Obviously this hasn't happened yet. Yes so low that it could also be chance, experimenter bias or poor test protocols. When the testing yields poor results believers then go to the meta analysis to try and find something (anything!) significant. Any anomaly is often seen as proof of something. If you have bias or poor test protocols then trying to calculate the odds of the results doesn't really matter. What you need to do next is get someone independant repeat the results using the same (hopefully tight) test protocols. The results need to replicatable. If you want psi to be taken seriously then you need meet the requirements of science. I will have a look Grover but I am wary whenever people: (1) point to great results that happened 100 or so years ago. Has no one been able to get any similar results since? Isn't that suspicious? and (2)Use Einstein to support a psuedoscience.
You raise some good points. Like I said I haven't read Randi's website so I'll have to take a look. Randi's suggested test certainly looks reasonable to me. Although I still think more or less that challenges and counter-challenges by magicians are a sideshow since there is actual scientific research being done at universities. (http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...oy/delanoy.pdf). -As far as the scientific evidence and statistics "Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin is a good analysis. Science in my opinion has proven psi and at the very least definitely not disproven it. Research into psi has been going on for over a hundred years, if it had been totally debunked it would have happened by now. But instead the situation is that respected scientists continue to look at the evidence and say that there is something to it based upon the evidence. - I don't expect anyone to believe in psi just because Einstein thought it was a possibility, I just mention Einstein because I want to underline the fact that not all people that believe in the possibility of psi are irrational or unscientific (which is an assumption I think many sceptics make). The book I mentioned was written about 60 years ago, I only mention it because Sinclair is reputable and the book itself gives good examples of drawings from remote viewing. (In no way do expect the book to be considered as conclusive evidence of psi or to convince scientific materialism fundamentalists). -You do raise good points. I think you're wrong about the meta-analysis thing (to be truthful I think you're being intellectually dishonest on this point since we both know that meta-analysis is a perfectly acceptable form of statistical analysis). Luckily scientists continue to do research so the reality of the situation, whatever that may be , will continue to become clearer.
Its a great discussion of evidence, but that evidence is not supporting the hypothesis. All experiments were not double blind and many (if not all) had a human feedback component. There were a rediculous number of variables that a sentient mind could pick up on if exposed to the various forms of sensory communication by other humans. The quality of the experiments was not good and the results were poor. The hypothesis' they are testing are not turning out supportive results. IMO their tests do show how human interaction can skew results. The interesting thing about the resistance you describe is it's ultimately futile if reality agrees with the assertion. In this case the resistance has reality on its side. These experiments remind me of the creationism position. They love 'God' and 'Reality' so they work tirelessly and futily to make both non-contradictory and supportive of each other. It seems we have a repeat of 'PSI' and 'Reality'.
Crunchy, You asked me to provide on double-blind study. I did that. In addition, your claim that "The quality of the experiments was not good and the results were poor" is an outright lie and further proof of your bias and REFUSAL to actually look at the evidence (if you had then you would have seen the primary cirtic of the Ganzfeld experiments admitted that the even when the "rigorous methodology" that he himself approved was used the experiments came up with results in support of the hypothesis). You said "The interesting thing about the resistance you describe is it's ultimately futile if reality agrees with the assertion. In this case the resistance has reality on its side. These experiments remind me of the creationism position. They love 'God' and 'Reality' so they work tirelessly and futily to make both non-contradictory and supportive of each other. It seems we have a repeat of 'PSI' and 'Reality." Once again you are a massive hypocrite. The "resistance" is your refusal to actually look at the evidence (which is proved by the fact that you obviously didn't read the paper but instead just categorically said that "The quality of the experiments were poor" when even the critic said a "rigorous methodology" had been followed.) It is you, hypocrite, that is the Creationist in this analogy by refusing to look at the evidence (evolution) and instead blindly adhere to your dogmatic beliefs (Remember, creationists are always claiming that the evidence for evolution is "poor").
Really? I didn't find the double-blind study you are referring too. Can it be pointed out in case I missed it? I saw the Ganzfeld critique as well as the results after approved methodology. What was it... 34% hit rate instead of the 'expected' random chance 25%? The study was not double blind and there was human interaction. Additionally that 9% delta is not evidence of PSI. Its evidence that the expected results don't match the actual by a small amount. Why is that? Thats the million dollar question that apparently is not being asked. Instead it must be 'PSI'. IMO, its an experimental quality issue. Regardless of how 'rigorous' the methdology was 'judged' to be, these were not double blind experiments and were subject to the communication of excessive information between the experimentor and the experimentee (i.e. the quality was not good). I have seen the results of double blind experiments and none of them even had a 9% success rate... not even a 1%. So there is a delta (a small one) and the question is why?
-You have got to be kidding me. Explain to me how there was any communication between experimentor and experimentee? The experimentee was totally isolated. Once again, you obvioulsy are introducing your own bias. - The experiment is double-blind, the experimenter does not know what image the computer selects.There is no judgmenet on the part of the experimenter. They either get the computer selected target(unknown to the experimenter) or they don't. Results should be 25% but repeatedly come out around 33%. -"Regardless of how 'rigorous' the methdology was 'judged' to be, these were not double blind experiments and were subject to the communication of excessive information between the experimentor and the experimentee (i.e. the quality was not good). I have seen the results of double blind experiments and none of them even had a 9% success rate... not even a 1%. So there is a delta (a small one) and the question is why?" -There was NO information between experimneter and experimentee. The critic of the original scientist was the one that aggreed that the possible methodological errors of the initial experiments were corrected and admitted that the results of the corrected procedure still supported the hypothesis. Bottom line: this is sound science. Just admit it, all your doing is finding the same types of "errors" in this science as Creationists find with evolution.
It may be a sideshow but that doesn’t change the fact that no one seems to be able display any paranormal powers, even when there is 1 million up for grabs. It is significant I think. Your link doesn't work. Proving a negative? So how do you disprove it? If you do many tests and get a negative result (which has happened many times) has it shown that it doesn’t exist? People want so very much to believe in psi that they will just keep doing more tests. When the zener cards don’t yield results they try different tests like the ganzfield. When these produce no results they then try meta-analysis. I don’t think it would matter how many tests produce nothing people will continue to test for psi. Some criticisms of Conscious Universe: http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudoscience/radinbook.htm I am not convinced by Radin’s work. I think you greatly underestimate the desire to believe that psi exists. The fact that it has been researched for over a hundred years and the best evidence produced so far comes from highly criticised studies that cannot be replicated is pretty damning. Sure it’s a possibility. Lots of things are possible. I would like more credible evidence though. Mentioning Einstein is just an appeal to authority. It may be a form of analysis but I don’t think meta-analysis is a reliable way to verify the existence of something and I don’t think one physical phenomenon has ever been confirmed by its use. If you want psi to be proven using science then you need positive results that can be repeated. Meta-analysis just lumps together similar tests as if they were the one. From what I have read the two main problems with meta-analysis are the file drawer effect and the varying quality of the different tests that are lumped together. Often the reason that it is used in the first place is because there aren’t enough reliable studies to collect data from - which only makes the meta-analysis even less reliable. So no I am not being intellectually dishonest. Another discussion on Radin's use of meta-analysis. http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-12/reality-check.html
-Shaman, here is the link: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/...oy/delanoy.pdf Like I've said. I think the science speaks for itself. -That criticism you cite of Radin's work has been thoroughly and unambigously discredited. The criticism rests on a flawed criticism by the magazine Nature. http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html It seems that its the critics of the science that a relying on faulty understanding of statitistics. Notice how much resistance the journal put up to admitting they made a mistake before they finally did. You are not convinced by Radin's work for the same reason Creationists are not convinced by Darwin's. And how dishonest and fraudulent of these people to be citing a discredited article (at the very least they are incompetent). -You said: "I think you greatly underestimate the desire to believe that psi exists. The fact that it has been researched for over a hundred years and the best evidence produced so far comes from highly criticised studies that cannot be replicated is pretty damning." I think you underestimate the desire not to believe in psi. It is so strong that sceptics cite magazine articles that have been thoroughly discredited and then consider the fact that they have highly criticised the study to be proof that the study has been highly criticised. The criticisms are bullshit and the studies can and have been replicated thousands of times. -Your last link cites the I.J. Good article again. Thoroughly discredited. See above link. -And for the last fucking time: SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT RANDI. Think about it for a split second, if psi does exist then why can't Randi be influencing the results? That's part of the reason the scientific method is used is to get rid of the influence of the person performing the experiment (think about how much more important that principle is when the phenomena in question is psi). Funny, how you hypocrites have no qualms whatsoever of ignoring the scientific method whenever you think it supports your belief. Like all fundamentalists you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.
Ask for evidence and ye' shall receive. Here is an example from the autoganzfeld procedure: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 "The receiver was asked to report all the ideas, images, and impressions that came into his or her mind (referred to as "mentation") during this sending period. Both the experimenter and the sender could hear the receiver's comments through headphones." "The receiver was then presented with a randomly ordered "target set," consisting of four video clips (the actual target and three decoys) and was asked to rate the amount of correspondence between his or her mentation and each of these clips. For many of the trials the experimenter assisted the receiver during this judging period. The sender could hear the judging process through headphones. The receiver scored a direct hit if the target receiving the highest rating was the target that had been viewed by the sender." I don't think you understand what a double blind experiment is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind_experiment "In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data are recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over." "Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter." Then why does the 'sender' and the 'experimenter' hear the 'receiver'? Apparently, your assertion is objectively false.
Um, Crunchy I don't think you understand. The experimenter does not know what target has been selected. Get it, the experimenter is blind. Making the experiment double-blind. If the experiment were single-blind then both the sender and experimenter would know what target had been selected. It is a double blind study., didn't you notice that the entire point of the article was to question if it was POSSIBLE(however farfetched) that the blindness of the experimenter had been compromised. The name of the article is : "Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments - Psychophysical Research Laboratories." Basically their counterargument is that MAYBE the results supported the hypothesis because the experimenter was POSSIBLY picking up auditory clues from the sender in another room such as IF the sender WERE to stomp their feet (again absolutely no evidence this actually occured or that even if it did that that experimenter could hear it and correctly interpret what the sound meant. AND then after all that(assuming it occured at all) the receiver has to pick up on the experimenters cues to allow them to correctly guess. Give me a fucking break. More psuedo-science from the fundamentalists. There is not a single ACTUAL error or case of contamination that they can point to. Zero. Pure speculation. -In related news anomalies in the fossil record provide further proof that Satan planted the dinosaur bones.
-I finally got the Randi page open. His counter-challenge to the counter-challenge does look pretty legitimate. I think it is safe to say that Dane Spotts was trying to weasel out of it. -And I will admit that even though the Randi challenge isn't science it is significant that no one has won the money and definitely lends support to the psi doesn't exist school. (BUT, it COULD also mean something about the nature of the phenomenon...humans have many processes they don't have control over. For instance, can you command someone to produce a seizure on the spot?).
Found it using google. I will read it after this post. No the criticism I posted a link to was not the one from Nature. I.J Good’s review was a lot more positive than the one I posted a link to. Are you actually comparing the evidence for evolution to the evidence for psi? Come on Grover. Not only is evolution confirmed by an enormous amount of evidence, it is confirmed by evidence from different fields of science. Your evidence for psi relies on results that can’t be repeated, tests with questionable controls and the use of dubious meta-analysis. I am not saying that all these results are worthless but do not compare it to evolution. The article from skepticreport did not cite that article. I could just as easily say that you are incompetent because it appears that you didn’t even read the article which I posted a link to and you keep confusing it with another one… I don't think that btw. The csicop article only made one reference to Good's review. Are you going to discard the whole article? Perhaps you are going to disregard all future criticisms of Radin, no matter who they are from, because of a dispute between him and Nature. See above comments. The studies have been replicated? Thousands of times? With positive results? What are these studies? Why are we arguing about the meta-analysis of negative results if psi has been confirmed by thousands of tests already? Randi is not at all the tests himself. I assume you think that the jref representative is having the same effect. While it is possible we are talking about something that hasn’t been conclusively proven somehow negating itself every time that it counts. That sounds like a convenient ad hoc hypothesis to me. So how do you tell when the failure to get results isn't actually an example of the phenomenon? It seems quite circular. What you are suggesting is that only people who believe in psi can get positive results. That doesn’t sound like a very good situation if you want psi to be confirmed using science. The scientific method is used to remove experimenter bias, fraud, weak protocols ect and it sounds like you want science to lower its standards just so you can get some sort of result. Perhaps this could be tested. Have someone hidden behind a curtain next to a person that is being tested. The person behind the curtain can be a believer or an evil, close-minded psuedo sceptic. See if the results obtained are different. Name calling is not a substitute for an argument. How am I ignoring scientific method? It seems to me that you don't want to hear any criticism of psi testing. It may sound like I have made my mind up when it comes to psi. Perhaps I have. However if there was some more credible evidence I could be certainly be swayed. That is all I want to see. I would love to believe it exists. However the results so far are simply not covncincing. There may be something there but there also may be many other problems that can account for the very small, and unreliable effect seen. Do you at least agree that it hasn’t been conclusively proven?
Shaman, -Yes, I would agree that it hasn't been conclusively proven (meaning it is not accepted by the entire scientific community as fact, not that there isn't solid scientifc evidence that supports the hypothesis that it does exist which warrants further study). -I'll have to double-check but I think the I.J. Good review is the nature review. -You said: "What you are suggesting is that only people who believe in psi can get positive results. That doesn’t sound like a very good situation if you want psi to be confirmed using science. The scientific method is used to remove experimenter bias, fraud, weak protocols ect and it sounds like you want science to lower its standards just so you can get some sort of result." I don't think that's what I'm suggesting-I'm just making the point that in science it is always important to take measures to ensure that the experimenter is not having an effect on the experiment, and with a phenomenon like psi this would be even more important for obvious reasons. -Sorry for the name calling. You actually seem like a very reasonable person.
