tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post8201775969394130601..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: Feeling the future meta-analysisDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-19480011037832995582016-04-21T02:26:38.904-07:002016-04-21T02:26:38.904-07:00"What, pray tell, is a "more direct expe..."What, pray tell, is a "more direct experiment" on telepathy than the ganzfeld experiment, or EEG correlation experiments, or "telephone telepathy" experiments, or DMILS experiments, or ...? "<br /><br />A more direct experiment is an experiment that uses related parties. All experiments are double blinded, which researchers say is necessary. However for the 99% of the population psi is apparent ONLY through relationship. Removing relationship is like saying "if you are not an Olympic swimmer then you can't swim" and then presenting the person with a pool with no water in it to show whether they can swim or not. <br /><br />There are very, very rare individuals who are capable of becoming aware of a stranger's mental suggestions. These are so rare that they fall within the margin of error. This small percentage is used as evidence by many people to say that ESP/psi is a hoax. <br /><br />Recently on a forum I saw a guy saying he is a psychiatrist calling ESP a hoax. What this does is to give him the right to discredit his patient's reality, which he is not privy to because it exists within the patient's interpersonal environment, and not only to label them as mentally ill, but also to drug the patient as a solution for their suffering.Kyrani99https://www.blogger.com/profile/00591360702337139424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-55280136035191540492014-09-08T09:21:55.932-07:002014-09-08T09:21:55.932-07:00Sorry, I used the wrong link for one item. Here is...Sorry, I used the wrong link for one item. Here is Dingwall's Ossowiecki experiment: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/DingwallanexperimentwiththepolishmediumstephanOssowieckijsprVolume21_pg260to264.pdf<br /><br />And here we can see Zofia Weaver's comments on that experiment: https://ia902504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/Poland-HomeOfMediums-Weaver-ejpVolume17_pg56to73.pdfBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-598180003733162622014-08-30T11:47:12.946-07:002014-08-30T11:47:12.946-07:00I need to clarify how the OTA report repudiated Al...I need to clarify how the OTA report repudiated Alcock. It did so in its citation of Brenda J. Dunne, Roger D. Nelson, Y. H. Dobyns & Robert G. Jahn, Individual Operator Contributions in Large Data Base Anomalies Experiments, Technical Note PEAR 88002. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University School of Engineering and Applied Science, 1988., which showed that the anomalous RNG effects were contributed by most of the subjects, and were not dependent upon the scores of Subject 10. (also as cited by Mishlove)<br /><br />Other aspects of the report, while not being entirely in the realm of advocacy for parapsychology, certainly presented a much more neutral view than the discredited NRC report.Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-19028695200950822682014-08-29T21:07:39.842-07:002014-08-29T21:07:39.842-07:00Rouder et al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis ...Rouder et al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010)<br /><br />was answered by<br /><br />Storm et al (2013). Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013)<br /><br />though critics tendentiously don't mention this. Storm et al (2010). A Meta-Analysis With Nothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010) noted that Hyman misrepresented the claims of parapsychologists. Tressoldi (2011). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences is particularly interesting to read in considering the evidential value of the Ganzfeld experiments.<br /><br />Wiseman in 2010 argued that parapsychologists nullify null results: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/heads_i_win_tails_you_loser_how_parapsychologists_nullify_null_results/<br /><br />Carter in 2010 argued that Wiseman nullified positive results: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Carter2010.pdf<br /><br />Baptista and Derakshani in 2014 argued that Wiseman created a caricature of parapsychology: http://www.academia.edu/7767705/Beyond_the_Coin_Toss_Examining_Wisemans_Criticisms_of_Parapsychology<br /><br /><br />Bem noted, regarding the studies of which this post discusses meta-analysis: "What Wiseman never tells people is in Ritchie, Wiseman and French is that his online registry where he asked everyone to register, first of all he provided a deadline date. I don’t know of any serious researcher working on their own stuff who is going to drop everything and immediately do a replication… anyway, he and Ritchie and French published these three studies. Well, they knew that there were three other studies that had been submitted and completed and two of the three showed statistically significant results replicating my results. But you don’t know that from reading his article. That borders on dishonesty.": http://www.skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/<br /><br />Now we get to the current meta-analysis under discussion.Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-16021707217837121962014-08-29T21:07:21.696-07:002014-08-29T21:07:21.696-07:00I remember mentioning the argument that there was ...I remember mentioning the argument that there was deceit on the part of Ray Hyman in the NRC report in suppressing data. After a review of the National Research Council Report, Col. John B. Alexander stated:<br /><br />"It seems clear that Hyman and James Alcock proceeded on an intentional path to discredit the work in parapsychology. ... What, may we ask, are they so afraid of? Is prevailing scientific orthodoxy so vital that they must deny evidence and suppress contrary opinion?" - "Enhancing Human Performance: A challenge to the report." New Realities, 9(4), 10-15, 52-53: https://ia902504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/EnhancingHumanPerformanceChallenge.pdf<br /><br />Jessica Utts also argued that the NRC engaged in data suppression: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1177011577, Hyman argued against this charge: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1177011582, and Utts reaffirmed her position: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1177011585<br /><br />We have seen above how Terence Hines' comment that Bem and Honorton committed errors was fictitious. Charges of sensory leakage have been met by counter charges: http://www.parapsy.nl/uploads/w1/GFsoundleakage_PA95.pdf<br /><br />The statement by Hyman - The most suspicious pattern was the fact that the hit rate for a given target increased with the frequency of occurrence of that target in the experiment. The hit rate for the targets that occurred only once was right at the chance expectation of 25%. For targets that appeared twice the hit rate crept up to 28%. For those that occurred three times it was 38%, and for those targets that occurred six or more times, the hit rate was 52%. Each time a videotape is played its quality can degrade. It is plausible then, that when a frequently used clip is the target for a given session, it may be physically distinguishable from the other three decoy clips that are presented to the subject for judging. Surprisingly, the parapsychological community has not taken this finding seriously. They still include the autoganzfeld series in their meta-analyses and treat it as convincing evidence for the reality of psi."<br /><br />was countered on p. 27 pf this paper: http://deanradin.com/evidence/Bem1994-2.pdf - "Higher repetitions of a target necessarily occur later in the sequence than lower repetitions. In turn, the chronological sequence of sessions is confounded with several other variables, including more experienced experimenters, more “talented” receivers (e.g., Juilliard students and receivers being retested because of earlier successes), and methodological refinements introduced in the course of the program in an effort to enhance psi performance (e.g., experimenter “prompting”). Again, Hyman’s major concern is that this pattern might reflect an interaction between inadequate target randomization and possible response biases on the part of those receivers or experimenters who encounter the same judging set more than once. This seems highly unlikely. In the entire database, only 8 subjects saw the same judging set twice, and none of them performed better on the repetition than on the initial session. Similar arithmetic applies to experimenters: On average, each of the eight experimenters encountered a given judging set only 1.03 times. The worst case is an experimenter who encountered the same judging set 6 times over the 6 1/2 years of the program. These six sessions yielded three hits, two of them in the first two sessions."<br /><br />The claim that Wiseman failed to replicate Ganzfeld results is misleading when you consider the paper Bem, Palmer, & Broughton (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld Database: A Victim of its own Success?: http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/Updating_Ganzfeld.pdf<br /><br />The article Tressoldi, Storm, & Radin (2010). Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition: <br /><br />argues about the Ganzfeld results: "The overall results now provide unambiguous evidence for an<br />independently repeatable ESP effect": http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/ESPNQ010.pdfBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-80886033247619613492014-08-29T20:38:02.002-07:002014-08-29T20:38:02.002-07:00In further response to Alcock's critique, the ...In further response to Alcock's critique, the Princeton team conducted further analyses of the data which show that the anomalous RNG effects were contributed by most of the subjects, and were not dependent upon the scores of Subject 10. Several other subjects, who participated in fewer experimental trials, actually had scores with greater chance deviations. By analyzing the data from only the first series of 7,500 trials (1,500,000 binary digits) from each subject, it was possible to level the influence that Subject 10 exerted on the database. In this analysis, with each subject carrying an equal weight, the results were significantly beyond chance. Another analysis was conducted which eliminated all of the data from Subject 10. This, too, was statistically significant.<br /><br />A comprehensive meta-analytic review of the RNG research literature encompassing all known RNG studies between 1959 and 1987 has been reported by Radin and Nelson, comprising over 800 experimental and control studies conducted by a total of 68 different investigators. The probability 597 experimental series was p < 10-35, whereas 235 control series yielded an overall score well within the range of chance fluctuation. In order to account for the observed experimental results on the basis of selective reporting (assuming no other methodological flaws), it would require "file drawers" full of more than 50,000 unreported studies averaging chance results." : http://www.williamjames.com/Science/PK.htm<br /><br />Regarding other skepticism of PEAR, see "The Parapsychology Revolution" compiled by Robert Schoch in 2008, pp. 144-145. <br /><br />Most importantly though, the Office of Technology Assessment repudiated Alcock's negative NRC assessment of Jahn's work. Everybody discusses the NRC report, but few discuss the OTA rebuttal: https://ia902504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/OfficeOfTechnologyAssessmentReportOnParapsychology.pdfBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-27303311282133685282014-08-29T20:37:44.590-07:002014-08-29T20:37:44.590-07:00Mishlove noted, when discussing the experiments of...Mishlove noted, when discussing the experiments of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, in the chapter of his book Roots of Consciousness regarding PK, "The Princeton team has gone to great lengths to try to ensure that their equipment is unbiased. Internal circuits are continually monitored with regard to internal temperature, input voltage, etc. Successive switching of the relationship between the sign of the noise and the sign of the output pulse on a trial-to-trial basis was done to provide a further safeguard against machine bias. Results were automatically recorded and analyzed. Extensive tests of the machine's output and its individual components were also carried out at times separate from the test sessions. The provision of baseline trials interspersed with test trials provided a randomization check which overcame some of the weaknesses of Schmidt's procedure.<br /><br />Psi researcher John Palmer has drawn attention to the fact that there is no documentation regarding measures to prevent data tampering by subjects. This is of concern since the subject was left alone in the room during the formal sessions along with the REG.<br /><br />In evaluating these studies, skeptic James Alcock claimed that only one subject (Operator 10) accounted for virtually all the significance departures from chance in the Princeton studies. Noting that details regarding precautions against subject cheating were not specified, Alcock stated:<br /><br />"I am not trying to suggest that this subject cheated; I am only pointing out that it would appear that such a possibility is not ruled out. Had the subject been monitored at all times, such a worry could have been avoided or at least reduced."<br /><br />The Princeton team has chosen a policy of keeping the identity of all experimental subjects anonymous -- among other reasons, in order to eliminate motivation for subjects to cheat. However, the fact that Subject 10 contributed considerably more to the database than any other subject, suggests that this individual was either a member of the experimental team or someone who had become a close friend of the experimenters. As such, Subject 10 might well have had access to information which would make it possible to tamper with the data recording system.<br /><br />In response to the criticisms of Palmer and Alcock, the Princeton researchers have prepared a detailed analysis of the equipment, calibration procedures and various precautions against data-tampering. According to the researchers, the automated and redundant on-line recording of data preclude data tampering -- as does the protocol requirement that the printer record be on one continuous, unbroken paper strip. It would appear that all necessary precautions have been taken, short of submitting subjects to constant visual observation. The subjects are submitted to intermittant visual observation which the researchers believe is sufficient to control against tampering with the equipment, given their particular setup.<br /><br />[...]Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-65065866440809745712014-08-29T20:27:39.216-07:002014-08-29T20:27:39.216-07:00In the debate following the article "An Anoma...In the debate following the article "An Anomaly called psi: recent research and criticism", the initial article which refuted Ray Hyman and CEM Hansel regarding Helmut Schmidt's experiments, Schmidt, in a follow up, countered Alcock's criticisms, and Alcock had follow up commentarry: <br /><br />Parker & Brusewitz, in their 2003 "Compendium of Evidence for Psi", stated: "Hansel and later James Alcock in a more specific form proposed that Schmidt’s results might have been due to his participants capitalizing on local biases in the target sequences. A study by John Palmer analyzed these sequences and rejected this hypothesis:<br /><br />Palmer, J. (1996) Evaluation of a conventional interpretation of Helmut Schmidt’s automated precognitive experiments. Journal of Parapsychology, 60, 149-170. [this is in the precognition section - Palmer later tested another one of Alcock's hypotheses in a way more critical of Schmidt, but that still ended up rejecting Alcock's views: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Hit-contingent+response+bias+in+Helmut+Schmidt's+automated...-a020576516]<br /><br />The other main criticism that Hansel (1980) made concerning that Schmidt worked alone, was answered by Schmidt (1993, below) in which his highly successful results were independently observed and replicated.<br /><br />Schmidt, H. (1993) Observation of a psychokinetic effect under highly controlled conditions. Journal of Parapsychology, 57, 357-372. [this summarized 5 such replications revolving around the Schmidt, Morris, Rudolph work -with other independent observers - Radin has important commentary about this in The Conscious Universe, an apparently this was of sufficient quality to catch the attention of Henry Stapp and provide the impetus for this paper: http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/purported.pdf]<br /><br />Alcock had other objections: "the apparatus used to "capture" this randomness has varied considerably, leading me to reiterate that the REG, which is more than just radioactive decay, has varied from experiment to experiment"<br /><br />and "In many of the studies, there are varying numbers of trials or sessions per subject, and these are usually combined."<br /><br />Regarding this Radin stated in personal communication:<br />"he study of different sources of randomness was a logical progression in these experiments because after seeing an effect with say electron tunneling, the question naturally arose as to whether there was something special about tunneling or whether the key factor was randomness itself, and not the precise physical source. The RNG MAs have generally kept track of the type of randomness to see if the difference sources make a difference. They don't (this is only true for true randomness and not pseudorandom sources). <br /><br />Variations in the number of trials and sessions per subject also occurred naturally to see if those factors mattered, and also because hardly anyone is obsessive enough to run exactly the same experiment again and again. That is, except for PEAR, which did exactly that for over a decade. And then critics don't like those results because they think it is suspicious because one operator performed better than the others. Having spent three years at Princeton working closely with the PEAR lab, I can attest to the fact that they were as obsessively careful as any research team I've ever met."Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-50645622259016263442014-08-29T20:12:31.111-07:002014-08-29T20:12:31.111-07:00As regards the The American Institutes for Researc...As regards the The American Institutes for Research (1995) paper "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", the Wikipedia commentary on this is so tendentious as to be fraudulent. The actual concluding commentary states: "remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues. WHILE THIS WAS APPROPRIATE IN THAT SITUATION, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomena independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume." (Emphasis added): http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf<br /><br />Paul Hamilton Smith has stated to me in personal communication, "the original quote and the context in which it is found leave holes large enough to drive a truck through. I don't have time right now, but sometime downstream I may write a rebuttal to the arguments there, as they are misleading and based on limited data that don't support the conclusions they jump to."<br /><br />Commentary by Jimmy Carter refutes the assertion that no valuable intelligence was gained from this work: http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1010/carters_weird_science.html<br /><br />May has further critical commentary regarding AIR - if you get his new "Anomalous Cognition" book, you will see a footnote to that article as reprinted in the book providing information revealing that the AIR investigation was essentially fraudulent: http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html<br /><br />Hansen, Utts, & Markwick (1992). Critique of the PEAR Remote Viewing Experiments<br /><br />was responded to by<br /><br />Dobyns, Dunne, Jahn, & Nelson (1992). Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick: Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments.<br /><br />Critics like Pigliucci have cited one but not the other.<br /><br />As regards the SAIC work and Wiseman's criticisms, are online but May's rebuttal is not. Wiseman wrote further commentary, but Loyd Auerbach, co-author of a book with May, stated to me in a personal communication today: "The editor of the journal had agreed that all of the criticisms were answered in Ed's response and that further debate served no purpose."<br /><br />Wiseman nevertheless conceded: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.htmlBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-29087448432235404432014-08-29T20:11:45.059-07:002014-08-29T20:11:45.059-07:00As regards the The American Institutes for Researc...As regards the The American Institutes for Research (1995) paper "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", the Wikipedia commentary on this is so tendentious as to be fraudulent. The actual concluding commentary states: "remote viewers and project managers reported that remote viewing reports were changed to make them consistent with know background cues. WHILE THIS WAS APPROPRIATE IN THAT SITUATION, it makes it impossible to interpret the role of the paranormal phenomena independently. Also, it raises some doubts about some well-publicized cases of dramatic hits, which, if taken at face value, could not easily be attributed to background cues. In at least some of these cases, there is reason to suspect, based on both subsequent investigations and the viewers' statement that reports had been "changed" by previous program managers, that substantially more background information was available than one might at first assume." (Emphasis added): http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/airreport.pdf<br /><br />Paul Hamilton Smith has stated to me in personal communication, "the original quote and the context in which it is found leave holes large enough to drive a truck through. I don't have time right now, but sometime downstream I may write a rebuttal to the arguments there, as they are misleading and based on limited data that don't support the conclusions they jump to."<br /><br />Commentary by Jimmy Carter refutes the assertion that no valuable intelligence was gained from this work: http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1010/carters_weird_science.html<br /><br />May has further critical commentary regarding AIR - if you get his new "Anomalous Cognition" book, you will see a footnote to that article as reprinted in the book providing information revealing that the AIR investigation was essentially fraudulent: http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html<br /><br />Hansen, Utts, & Markwick (1992). Critique of the PEAR Remote Viewing Experiments<br /><br />was responded to by<br /><br />Dobyns, Dunne, Jahn, & Nelson (1992). Response to Hansen, Utts, and Markwick: Statistical and Methodological Problems of the PEAR Remote Viewing (sic) Experiments.<br /><br />Critics like Pigliucci have cited one but not the other.<br /><br />As regards the SAIC work and Wiseman's criticisms, are online but May's rebuttal is not. Wiseman wrote further commentary, but Loyd Auerbach, co-author of a book with May, stated to me in a personal communication today: "The editor of the journal had agreed that all of the criticisms were answered in Ed's response and that further debate served no purpose."<br /><br />Wiseman nevertheless conceded: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-theory-ALL-psychic.htmlBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-6232041607607087422014-08-29T20:11:26.290-07:002014-08-29T20:11:26.290-07:002 conjuring experts praised the work done with Oss...2 conjuring experts praised the work done with Ossowiecki - see Dingwall (1922). An Experiment With the Polish Medium Stephan Ossowiecki.: https://ia802504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/BestermanAnExperimentInClairvoyanceWithOssowieckiPsprVolume41_pg357to367.pdfhttps://ia802504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/BestermanAnExperimentInClairvoyanceWithOssowieckiPsprVolume41_pg357to367.pdf<br /><br />In this account of the experiment, published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, after ruling out any possibility of access to the contents of the envelope by normal means, Dingwall concluded, "The supernormal character of the incident seems to me quite clear and decisive." Regarding this experiment conjuring expert Harry Price, in Fifty Years of Psychical Research, pp. 41-42, the following: "It is a relief to turn from rather clever conjuring tricks to the really abnormal cognizance of the contents of a sealed package, a feat accomplished during my attendance at the Second International Congress for Psychical Research, held at Warsaw in August and September, 1923) by the Polish engineer, Stefan Ossowiecki. Dr. E. J. Dingwall, then research officer of the (British) S.P.R., also attended the Congress and took with him a sealed package, consisting of coloured opaque envelopes, in which were a message in French, a date, and crude drawings of a bottle and a flag. By merely holding the package, Ossowiecki correctly visualized the flag and the bottle, the colours of the envelopes, and the numerals of the date, though not in the order as written. Because he had himself prepared the drawing, etc., and in order to eliminate the possibility of telepathy, Dingwall did not attend the experiment, the result of which was cheered by those present, Baron Schrenck-Notzing rushing up to the medium and crying "Merci, merci, au nom de la science!"<br /><br />Smith (2009). Is Physicalism "Really" True? overviews remote viewing controversies, among other things (DMILS, etc.),contains the statement, on p. 212: "When the first edition of Marks’ and Kamman’s Psychology of the Psychic was published in 1980, there may have been some reason to question the original remote viewing research and replications, since there was still only a relatively small number of 212 trials (certainly not yet even 200) available in only a few publicly accessible studies. However, by the time Marks published the second edition of the book in 2000 (some years after Kamman’s death), there was much less justification – and justification has grown even less in the intervening years since that time.": http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12-682/SMITH-DISSERTATION.pdfBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-23329346405090537292014-08-29T20:09:29.678-07:002014-08-29T20:09:29.678-07:00Hansel misrepresented much else, I can recall a re...Hansel misrepresented much else, I can recall a reference concerning his misrepresentation of the work with Pavel Stepanek - Martin Gardner notably did this and was noted to have attempted to bribe Stepanek. This would obviously mean that whatever "personal information" he uses to attack the field is unreliable, and everything he writes needs to be independently verified for omissions and distortions.<br /><br />Radin's response to "skepticism" posted above cites Child's 1985 paper regarding the misrepresentations of the Maimonides dream ESP experiments by Alcock, Zusne & Jones, and Hansel. Hansel had claimed that the agent had communicated with the experimenter during the dream telepathy experiments, but this was false. During the experiment the agent did not at any time communicate with the experimenter and this was reported in the original monograph.<br /><br />Stanley Krippner, in "New Frontiers of Human Science: A Festschrift for K. Ramakrishna Rao", p. 135, stated, "This behavior does not represent the collegiality that marks mature and considerate scientists. Even though Hansel's error had been pointed out by Akers, Child, and others, it was repeated in a 1985 paper.": http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sb-HuOtqaPYC&pg=PA132&dq=%22Various+types+of+criticism+have+been+leveled+against+the+Maimonides%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=moLaU6PGNvOy7AaunYCIAg&ved=0CCMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Various%20types%20of%20criticism%20have%20been%20leveled%20against%20the%20Maimonides%22&f=false<br /><br />Hansen, in "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview", p. 47n25, stated: "Randi’s antics should have come as no surprise to members of CSICOP because he has engaged in similar behavior in relation to psi research. Krippner (1977), Rao (1984), Targ and Puthoff (1977, pp. 182-186), and Tart (1982b) have all documented glaring errors of Randi. Dennis Stillings has demonstrated that “Randi is capable of gross distortion of facts” (Truzzi, 1987, p. 89). Randi has been quoted as saying, “I always have an out” with regard to his $10,000 challenge (Rawlins, 1981, p. 89). Puthoff and Targ (1977) documented a number of mistakes. In a published, handwritten, signed letter, Randi replied offering $1,000 if any claimed error could be demonstrated (see Fuller, 1979). Fuller proved Randi wrong. In a rejoinder to Puthoff and Targ (1977), Randi reversed himself (for a clear example, see point number 15 in Randi, 1982, p. 223). Randi should have paid the $1,000, but he never did."<br /><br />Zofia Weaver argued in a defense of the career of and experiments with the Polish psychic Stefan Ossowiecki that the experiments, particularly the one by Eric Dingwall, was of sufficient quality to supersede the objections of David Marks to the methodological quality of clairvoyance tests, but that this was something Marks had overlooked.<br /><br />Weaver wrote a text on Ossowiecki with Barrington and Stevenson entitled The World In A Grain of Sand: The Clairvoyance of Stefan Ossowiecki (McFarland & Company, Inc., 2005)<br /><br />They argued that he was not omniscient, but did prove psi under controlled conditions, and as we can see from Appendix I of the aforementioned book on him, skeptical claims with regards to the work done with him by Poniatowski are misleading. Most of this work produced valid information (see especially experiments 9, 10, and 13, 14, and 15, highlighted in the text.<br /><br />Most of his hits in the work with him were successful - Appendix II is devoted to this.Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-31767542427153148202014-08-29T19:19:18.965-07:002014-08-29T19:19:18.965-07:00As for subseries B, the individual scores as given...As for subseries B, the individual scores as given in the footnotes add up to 288 and 295 in the 1936 and 1954 reports, respectively. Recall that totals are not given in the reports, but can be computed by us from the footnotes as well as from the results presented in the main body of the reports. In the table on page 222 of The Abnormal and Social Psychology report, we find that for subseries B there are 1100 trials and the average score for 25 trials is 6.7. From this, it is clear that even in this report the total number of hits for subseries Β is 295, the same as that given in the Journal of parapsychology report. So there is no discrepancy here.<br /><br />It would appear that a few of the individual scores as given in the footnote for the 1936 article were misprinted and that one score was inadvertently left out. The footnote gives only 43 scores when there should have been 44.<br /><br />Hansel leaves the impression that Rhine and Pratt were unmindful of the errors in the first report. This was not so. A footnote in the Journal of Parapsychology article (Rhine and Pratt, 1954) reads: 'In the two reports ... in which the run scores of the series were published, the scores of subseries Β and C were not given consecutively, and there were two other minor errors. It seems worthwhile, therefore, to list the complete run scores in chronological order here' (p. 171). Here is the explanation of the discrepancy in the sequence of the scores as given in the 1936 and 1954 reports. Surely Hansel cannot be unaware of this: he gets the individual scores from this footnote only.<br /><br />While it is regrettable that there were errors in the first report, though inconsequential in themselves, I wonder how many of us can honestly say that we make no such errors. As I have pointed out, Hansel himself commits a few. To give a few more, reference 8 on page 119 which has to do with Extra-Sensory Perception After Sixty Years refers on page 123 to (The) Reach of the Mind (incidentally, The was omitted); reference 9 to The Reach of the Mind on page 119 is listed in the notes on page 123 as New World of the Mind. On page 121 Hansel mentions Frontiers of the Mind by J. B. Rhine. He obviously means New Frontiers of the Mind.<br /><br />In evaluating Hansel's critique, we should bear in mind that the records of the Pearce-Pratt experiment are still in existence, and that they were examined in the past by others and re-checked by Stuart, Greenwood and Murphy. Again, Hansel himself was at Duke with Rhine and Pratt and they would have easily clarified these matters, if Hansel had raided them then. Hansel (1961) did not refer to these discrepancies in his first critique of this experiment published in the Journal of Parapsychology.<br /><br />In summary, then, Hansel's criticism of the Pearce-Pratt experiment is not entirely reliable. But the fact that his words have been taken seriously by such persons as Dr. West makes me wonder whether there is some truth in the saying that if someone shouts long and loud enough he will be heard without regard to what he says."Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-7798672063870208022014-08-29T19:19:01.393-07:002014-08-29T19:19:01.393-07:00Much was made of the fact that the original report...Much was made of the fact that the original report of the Pearce-Pratt experiments did not give all the details of procedure and experimental conditions that we now consider necessary. West and some other parapsychologists appear to be ready to blame Rhine for this failure. Stevenson (1967), for example, writes, 'Rhine had already published informal reports [of the Pearce—Pratt experiment] in two of his popular books and it is doubtful procedure in science to announce one's results first to the general public and then (in this case many years later) present a detailed report for scientists' (p. 259). I believe these accusations are unfair. It is not the case that Rhine announced his results first to the public. The results of the Pearce—Pratt experiment were first published in The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (Rhine, 1936) and were only subsequently mentioned in his popular books. (The first of these, New Frontiers of the Mind, appeared in 1938.) The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology is a respected journal in mainstream psychology and Rhine had no editorial control over it. Does this not clearly imply that the additional details that we now consider necessary were not considered so then by the psychologists who refereed his paper and the editors who published it? The Journal of Parapsychology was in existence then and if Rhine published his report in it with inadequate details, we might have had some reason to blame him for not giving them all. The truth is that details of the sort that we now require of parapsychological reports were simply not found necessary then. When it became increasingly clear that further details of the experimental procedure were called for, Rhine and Pratt published a detailed report in 1954.<br /><br />Now, the more serious of the criticisms relates to the discrepancies between various published accounts of the experiment. Several of these are trivial and none is sufficient to call into question the veracity of the experiment or the credibility of the experimenters. Interestingly, Hansel makes more errors in his very brief review of the experiment than do the authors. Here are some examples.<br /><br />He writes, 'The scores published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology disagree with those in the Journal of Parapsychology. They give total hits for the four subseries as: A, 179; B, 288; C, 86; D, 56. The individual scores quoted are also in a different order for subseries Β and C from those given in the Journal of Parapsychology' (1980, 120—121). Here Hansel gives the total scores as reported in one journal and not in the other. Therefore, the reader does not really know the magnitude of the discrepancies. More significantly, neither report actually gives the total number of hits in each of the four subseries as Hansel implies. These totals, it appears, are computed by Hansel from the footnote on page 222 of The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1936). He found they differed from those obtained by adding up individual scores as given in the Journal of Parapsychology (1954) report. I did the same and came up with different figures. Hansel gives the total hits for subseries A as 179. Actually, the total score that one would obtain by adding up individual scores given in footnotes in both reports or by computing from the average and deviation scores given in the main body of the reports is 119. So Hansel in his computation makes an error much larger than anything that he finds in the reports he criticizes. Again, as far as this score is concerned, there is no discrepancy between the two reports.<br /><br />[...]Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-54461309879142799352014-08-29T19:17:41.436-07:002014-08-29T19:17:41.436-07:00Then, for criticisms after the era of psychical re...Then, for criticisms after the era of psychical research, and in the era of parapsychology, we have tendentious and fraudulent criticisms. <br /><br />See K.R. Rao's comments, to realize that Hansel's work on the Pearce-Pratt issue is fraudulent - as follows, from Rao 1981, pp. 191-194: https://ia902504.us.archive.org/27/items/moreitems/WestVsRaoOnHansel.pdf<br /><br />"Madam, Dr. D. J. West in his fine review of C. E. M. Hansel's ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Re-Evaluation (1980) (Journal No. 787) seems to accept too readily the implications of Professor Hansel's alleged discovery of discrepancies in the reporting of the Pearce—Pratt experiment in various places. Since the Pearce-Pratt experiment is one of the highly evidential studies we have in parapsychology and since Hansel is apparently successful in creating the impression—even among such unbiased scientists as Dr. West—that there was something seriously wrong with it, I wish briefly to examine Hansel's arguments and his credibility as a responsible critic. The points made against the Pearce—Pratt experiment are: ( 1 ) that it was not reported in adequate detail at the time it was carried out; (2) that there were discrepancies in its different published versions; and (3) that the experimental conditions were such that the subject, Pearce, could have cheated in a number of possible ways.<br /><br />Let us consider the fraud issue first. Neither Hansel, or anyone else for that matter, presented any evidence or circumstances that suggest even remotely that Pearce did cheat. The best Hansel (1980) was able to produce was his concluding statement in the book, Ά further unsatisfactory feature lies in the fact that a statement has not been made by the central figure, Hubert Pearce. The experimenters state that trickery was impossible, but what would Pearce have said? Perhaps one day he will give us his own account of the experiment' (p. 123). This statement does not tally with the facts. Contrary to Hansel's remarks, Pearce did make a statement in which he unequivocally asserted that he did not cheat (Stevenson, 1967). Pearce is now dead, and therefore will not be able to make another statement more to the liking of Hansel, unless Hansel believes in the ability of the deceased to make statements!<br /><br />The hypothesis of fraud to explain away the results of such experiments as the Pearce-Pratt series is essentially sterile and non-falsifiable. As I pointed out elsewhere (Rao, 1981), the argument that it is more parsimonious to assume fraud rather than the existence of 'impossible' phenomena such as ESP is as logically false as it is historically untrue.<br /><br />[...]Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-84435116505032132014-08-29T19:11:50.761-07:002014-08-29T19:11:50.761-07:00Hyslop also wrote about the omissions and distorti...Hyslop also wrote about the omissions and distortions of others - see <br />Hyslop (1910). President G. Stanley Hall's and Dr. Amy E. Tanner's Studies in Spiritism.: http://books.google.com/books?id=RHgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&lr=&output=html<br /><br />Hyslop (1912). Review of "Evidence for the Supernatural" by Ivor Lloyd Tuckett.: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101063849143;view=1up;seq=581<br /><br />Hyslop (1919). Review of "Spiritualism and Sir Oliver Lodge" by Charles Mercier, "Reflections on "Raymond"" by Walter Cook, and "The Question: "If a Man Die, Shall he Live Again?"" by Edward Clodd: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&output=html&id=knkYAQAAIAAJ&jtp=318<br /><br />Walter Franklin Prince has written on this subject - in The Enchanted Boundary: Being a Survey of Negative Reactions to Claims of Psychic Phenomena, 1820-1930.: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015073174594;view=1up;seq=9<br /><br />Alan Gauld has written on this in "The Founders of Psychical Research" (see in particular this: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/CriticsOfMrs.Piper.pdf), and briefly commented on the tendentious attitude of critics in "Mediumship and Survival": http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/mediumship.html<br /><br />Andreas Sommer has written about the distortions surrounding the early period:<br />Sommer (2011). Professional Heresy: Edmund Gurney (1847–88) and the Study of Hallucinations and Hypnotism.: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143882/<br /><br />Sommer (2012). Psychical research and the origins of American psychology: Hugo Münsterberg, William James and Eusapia Palladino: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3552602/<br /><br />Sommer (2011). Review of "Immortal Longings: F.W.H. Myers and the Victorian Search for Life after Death" by Trevor Hamilton: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143887/Benjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-91445651933865888832014-08-29T19:11:37.256-07:002014-08-29T19:11:37.256-07:00Or you get a consensus based on people who omit or...Or you get a consensus based on people who omit or distort sources and commit academic malpractice, but because they have the power to do so, get away with it, where they would certainly discredit their field were they in the minority camp. <br /><br />Radin has actually written about this, see: http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/articles/other/skepticism.htm<br /><br />Alfred Russel Wallace wrote about the omissions and distortions of critics of his day - see <br /><br />Wallace (1877). Carpenter's "Mesmerism, Spiritualism, &c., Historically and Scientifically Considered": http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S270.htm<br /><br />Wallace (1898). The Opposition to Hypnotism and Psychical Research: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S726CH17.htm<br /><br /><br />As did William Crookes: http://www.esalen.org/ctr-archive/crookes-researches.html#co<br /><br />Crookes was posthumously attacked, leading to a controversy with Trevor Hall and Eric Dingwall on one side and Medhurst & Goldney on the other that had some resolution in the work of GAM Zorab, though this has been ignored outside parapsychology, see the book "In Honour of GAM Zorab".<br /><br />Dingwall, in spite of that attitude, wrote a positive review of a book that countered negative allegations against Crookes' subject DD Home: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/JenkinsElizabeth.TheShadowAndTheLightReviewedByE.j.DingwallJsprVolume52_pg143to147.pdf<br /><br />See also: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Sorcerer+of+Kings%3A+The+Case+of+Daniel+Dunglas+Home+and+William...-a016937197 <br /><br />Ishida (2012). A Review of Sir William Crookes' Papers on Psychic Force with some Additional Remarks on Psychic Phenomena., defends the Crookes spring-balance experiments with Daniel Dunglas Home. This paper reviews Crookes' spring-balance experiments with the medium D.D. Home by theoretically simulating the experiments based on Newtonian mechanics. It shows in the simulation that even if a competent magician is permitted to use a trick to realize similar variations in spring force to the one recorded in Crookes' second experiment, the magician could not realize it because the experimental results (time-dependent variations in spring force) showed features which could not be explained on the basis of Newtonian mechanics).: https://ia601200.us.archive.org/13/items/NotesonSpiritualismandPsychicalResearch/ReviewOfWilliamCrookes.pdf<br /><br />Frank Podmore wrote about the omissions and distortions people used when attacking the evidence for telepathy: <br />Podmore (1894). What Psychical Research Has Accomplished.: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25103491<br /><br />Others have written on the omissions and distortions of Podmore when addressing subjects going beyond his ideological comfort zone of telepathy - see Wallace (1897). Extract from Js-E de Mirville's "Des Esprits et de<br />Leurs Manifestations Fluidiques."<br />Introductory Note by Alfred R. Wallace.: http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S568.htm<br /><br />Thurston (1933). The Accordion Playing of D. D. Home (this comes from Thurston's book "Church and Spiritualism", published in 1933, and is here reprinted in the PsyPioneer Journal, a publication dedicated to the serious discussion of Spiritualism and Psychical Research, in Vol. 10 No. 5 - May 2014, on pp. 142-155. It counters the claim that in his accordion performances Home played only a couple of tunes, and it counters both Frank Podmore's claim that the accordion feat was a concealed music-box, and Carlos María de Heredia's claim that a secret accomplice was playing another accordion.): http://www.woodlandway.org/PDF/PP10.5May2014.pdf<br /><br />See Bostazzi (1905). In Defense of the Memory of William Stainton Moses: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2936413;view=1up;seq=89<br /><br />See Hyslop (1903). Reply to Mr. Podmore's Criticism: http://books.google.com/books?id=1krOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA78&dq=editions:LCCN09022954&lr=&output=htmlBenjamin Steigmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14305345132918618601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-34216110985942058682014-08-29T09:38:40.498-07:002014-08-29T09:38:40.498-07:00Dean: What, pray tell, is a "more direct expe...Dean: What, pray tell, is a "more direct experiment" on telepathy ...<br /><br />Sam: the answer to your question is I don't know<br /><br />Dean: Exactly. You don't know.<br /><br />Sam: ... it's what I could think of in terms of presentiment after thinking about it for a very short time and very limited knowledge of the literature.... ... I have read a fair bit of this particular literature by this point ...<br /><br />Dean: Hmm. <br /><br />Sam: It's ironic you bring up climate change deniers. Yes, they are the skeptics in that context but they are also the small group going against the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community.<br /><br />Dean: The point is that climate change deniers don't know, or don't want to know, the relevant empirical evidence. A "scientific consensus" is supposed to be based on careful assessment of what is known. But in the case of psi research we are faced with the peculiar situation of a mainstream consensus based on not knowing!<br /><br />Sam: Now, please have your last words and I promise I won't reply.<br /><br />Dean: I encourage discussion and debate. In some cases opinion may be too divergent to reach agreement, but that's okay. Also, this is my blog, so I will always get the last word. :-)Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-586892780394247402014-08-27T02:56:19.961-07:002014-08-27T02:56:19.961-07:00Just answering two questions. It is your blog and ...Just answering two questions. It is your blog and you may have all the last words you wish (just don't ask me any direct questions please? :P):<br /><br />@Irene: <i>Though I think the scientists who published the aforementioned papers would also be surprised to find that their meta-analysis results are not "scientifically meaningful".</i><br /><br />I'm sorry that was badly phrased. Essentially what I meant to say is that a statistically significant result should be the starting point, not the end point. It doesn't prove the existence of an effect but should generate new specific hypotheses that, if confirmed, can be interpreted as confirmations (not as proof). <br /><br /><i>What, pray tell, is a "more direct experiment" on telepathy than the ganzfeld experiment, or EEG correlation experiments, or "telephone telepathy" experiments, or DMILS experiments, or ...?</i><br /><br />First, let me clarify that I never criticised research on telepathy. Not that I believe it exists but I would regard this as more a plausible hypothesis than precognition/presentiment, assuming it works at subliminal speeds. (I'd however still want to see more experiments on alternatives of course)<br /><br />Anyway, the answer to your question is I don't know, but it's also not my job to know. It's the job of the researcher investigating this phenomenon to come up with ever more possible confounds and alternative hypotheses and then continue to test them. In general terms, any experiment that directly manipulates the effect or one of the potential confounds fits the bill. I mentioned a list of a few possibilities in my Frontiers commentary and it's what I could think of in terms of presentiment after thinking about it for a very short time and very limited knowledge of the literature. This is the point Irene took issue with, but it's precisely the point. As someone with far more knowledge of these phenomena and 30 years experience of studying them you should be able to think of far more alternative explanations than any outsider. If there is this large literature on these points then I don't know where it is and, more critically, I don't understand why this wasn't discussed in the "critical review" about the topic.<br /><br /><i>What your comments tell me is that you have developed strong opinions about psi without actually reading and contemplating the literature.</i><br /><br />That's not true. I do have strong opinions about science, however. I have read a fair bit of this particular literature by this point (and had before I wrote that commentary). I obviously don't have decades worth of experience with it but I have read and contemplated my share of it. Maybe there is this enormous body of literature that answers all my questions that I have somehow missed completely. <br /><br />It's ironic you bring up climate change deniers. Yes, they are the skeptics in that context but they are also the small group going against the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. The perpetuation of the idea that there is an inherent bias in the scientific community to ignore or suppress evidence of psi to me is very reminiscent of the foible for conspiracy theories in the climate change discussion (trust me, I know far too many people who believe that sort of stuff and those people also embraced the view that 9/11 was staged as was that recent plane disaster in Ukraine etc - it's a discussion too exhausting for me to engage in as it's really like talking to a wall). I'm not saying that is what you guys are doing but I can't help but see some clear parallels. <br /><br />Anyway, as I said I am writing on an article that explains what I mean and I will probably publish this in some form, presumably after reading your response to my commentary. Now, please have your last words and I promise I won't reply.<br /><br />Kind regards and best wishes,<br />Sam<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08650498486195818917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-76766341698416411832014-08-26T20:32:50.027-07:002014-08-26T20:32:50.027-07:00This being my blog, I get the last word.
> No ...This being my blog, I get the last word.<br /><br />> No experiment, not even the most well designed ones, can perfectly exclude the enormous multivariate parameter space of even all known factors.<br /><br />Exactly. And this is how critics can, and regularly do, reject the results of any experiment whose outcome is not to their liking. The only way to assess whether a controversial idea is "real" is through independent replication, and that immediately requires meta-analysis. There's no getting around it. Registering studies in advance is a good step forward, but that does not wipe out the previous century of experimental data.<br /><br />> And while skeptics of ones own work (not just talking about psi here) will no doubt work actively to research possible alternative explanations, in my mind the onus should be on researchers themselves to generate further alternatives with the aim to falsify their main hypothesis.<br /><br />Of course, but your implication is that psi researchers don't do this. In fact, the relevant literature is saturated with arguments and debates about alternative explanations. <br /><br />> At best statistical tests can tell you that telepathy is one possible explanation. Only more direct experiments can get closer to this. <br /><br />What, pray tell, is a "more direct experiment" on telepathy than the ganzfeld experiment, or EEG correlation experiments, or "telephone telepathy" experiments, or DMILS experiments, or ...? <br /><br />>> Over decades several psi experiments have evolved that even the most severe skeptics (e.g. Wiseman, Hyman) agree that there are no known plausible alternatives to the psi hypothesis. > I'm unsure they would necessarily agree with this statement <br /><br />"No plausible alternative" is Hyman's own words. Wiseman is even more positive. Of course, neither of them is ready to admit that they "believe" in psi, but that's only because they've built a career on denying it, or they invoke the perfect Catch 22 that you need to know what it is in order to know if you've found it.<br /><br />What your comments tell me is that you have developed strong opinions about psi without actually reading and contemplating the literature. This is understandable because it takes years of concentrated study to become an expert in any given field, and no working scientist is going to bother to become an expert in a field that they have a priori rejected. However, having worked in this field for 30+ years, I believe I can justifiably say that my opinion is informed, whereas yours is not. <br /><br />So, from a purely rational perspective, who should a third party believe when reading such an exchange? The guy who denies climate change but knows nothing about it, or the guy who has spent a career studying it? Substitute your favorite controversial topic for climate change, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />I'm sorry if I sound a bit harsh about this, but I've gone through this sort of discussion so many times that my patience grows thin.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-12751788445673683012014-08-26T06:04:11.552-07:002014-08-26T06:04:11.552-07:00>Obviously there are numerous meta-analyses out...<i>>Obviously there are numerous meta-analyses out there. This isn't the same as a scientific discovery that hinges on meta-analysis results.</i> <br /><br />Forgive me, but the papers I linked to publish scientific discoveries (new gene complex-trait loci) that <i>absolutely</i> hinge on meta-analysis results. <br /><br />You might want confirmation of the results by different methods, and of course in the biological sciences there are various methods that can be employed for this (none of them, I might stress, liable to give perfect 100% certain results), but the <i>discovery</i> was made through meta-analysis.<br /><br />This is the last sentence from the abstract of the first paper (italics my own): <br /><br />"Our results highlight the advantages of transethnic meta-analysis for the <i>discovery and fine mapping</i> of complex trait loci and have provided initial insights into the underlying genetic architecture of serum protein concentrations and their association with human disease."<br /><br />https://www.bioshare.eu/content/discovery-and-fine-mapping-serum-protein-loci-through-transethnic-meta-analysis<br /><br /><i>>For a finding as bold as precognition this isn't sufficient evidence from where I am standing. Of course, it isn't for any other meta-analysis either until someone comes up with a practical confirmation that the effects are indeed scientifically meaningful.</i> <br /><br />That is very different from saying: <i>"I can't think of any examples (outside of a whole series of 'psi' research, that is) where scientific discoveries hinged on meta-analysis."</i> -- which was the initial statement I took issue with.<br /><br />Though I think the scientists who published the aforementioned papers would also be surprised to find that their meta-analysis results are not "scientifically meaningful".IreneSoldatoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16106807746792156649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-85892537006272151892014-08-25T08:56:27.818-07:002014-08-25T08:56:27.818-07:00To test whether such episodes are coincidences or ...<i>To test whether such episodes are coincidences or one of a dozen other ordinary alternatives, we design an experiment that excludes all of the known explanations.</i><br /><br />That's where we disagree. I quite happily welcome the study of unexpected, unexplained phenomena. I'm quite intrigued by such experiences myself. But I think it is hubris to assume that every experiment has excluded all known explanations. No experiment, not even the most well designed ones, can perfectly exclude the enormous multivariate parameter space of even all known factors. And while skeptics of ones own work (not just talking about psi here) will no doubt work actively to research possible alternative explanations, in my mind the onus should be on researchers themselves to generate further alternatives with the aim to falsify their main hypothesis. And yes, this applies to all science, not only psi research.<br /><br /><i>If the results of that experiment shows a significant effect, the result is an anomaly that fits the telepathy hypothesis.</i><br /><br />Rather, it does not fit the null hypothesis, or - if you are a Bayesian - it fits the alternative hypothesis better than the null. This says nothing about telepathy. At best statistical tests can tell you that telepathy is one possible explanation. Only more direct experiments can get closer to this. <br /><br /><i>This doesn't mean that we know precisely what "psi" is, but it does mean that when people report these strange experiences that sometimes they are genuinely anomalous.</i><br /><br />And my approach to that such experiences are interesting but I will assume that there is a simple explanation (i.e. "anomalous") and I want to leave no stone unturned until I have figured out what it is. If I haven't managed to do so by the time I lay down to eternal slumber (or however you wish to put it), then I might consider that it is a puzzle I won't be able to solve. But to be honest the history of science suggests to me that just because I can't find a simple explanation within a lifetime of research doesn't mean that one of my successors won't do it within a day. <br /><br /><i>Over decades several psi experiments have evolved that even the most severe skeptics (e.g. Wiseman, Hyman) agree that there are no known plausible alternatives to the psi hypothesis.</i><br /><br />I'm unsure they would necessarily agree with this statement but that's for them to discuss. Anyway, I said what I came here to say, which is that Wagenmaker's argument goes well beyond skepticism about psi. I think he's very consistent in his message about psychology in general. So I'll leave you in peace again ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08650498486195818917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-75903002047555108482014-08-25T07:18:17.744-07:002014-08-25T07:18:17.744-07:00> In order to convince me at least the research...> In order to convince me at least the research would have to present far more evidence trying to explain the unexplained phenomenon, starting with ... the null hypothesis that the unexplained variance is merely noise. ... I think you are shutting yourself off from actually discovering what is going on by concluding "it must be psi." <br /><br />This is a common misunderstanding of the purpose of a psi experiment. It assumes that these experiments are designed to look for psi without considering a very wide range of alternative explanations. This of course is not the case.<br /><br /><br />All psi experiments begin with reports of anomalous human experiences. If someone describes hearing the phone ring and without looking somehow "knowing" who is on the line, we call such experiences telepathy. To test whether such episodes are coincidences or one of a dozen other ordinary alternatives, we design an experiment that excludes all of the known explanations. If the results of that experiment shows a significant effect, the result is an anomaly that fits the telepathy hypothesis.<br /><br />If someone comes up with a new alternative hypothesis, then that loophole is closed. Etc. Over decades several psi experiments have evolved that even the most severe skeptics (e.g. Wiseman, Hyman) agree that there are no known plausible alternatives to the psi hypothesis.<br /><br />This doesn't mean that we know precisely what "psi" is, but it does mean that when people report these strange experiences that sometimes they are genuinely anomalous.<br /><br />Major discoveries in science often begin with anomalies. This is why I am personally interested in studying these phenomena. Others may have their own reasons. Understanding what psi *is* will, like everything else we "know," rest upon development of adequate theories. I suspect that such theories will ultimately arise through new developments in physics.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-49871733098035248312014-08-25T04:18:11.079-07:002014-08-25T04:18:11.079-07:00"Psi abilities may seem to provide an advanta..."Psi abilities may seem to provide an advantage, but a case can be made that the cost of that advantage actually reduces its evolutionary value to the individual. I.e., the human organism has survived because we pay very close attention to the here and now. Psi seems to provide additional information about the there and then. If you cannot easily and accurately distinguish between here and now and there and then, you are likely to be eaten by the tiger in front of you rather than the one a thousand miles away or 4 months in the future. This does not look good from an evolutionary perspective."<br /><br />This to me seems similar to what Huxley proposed in his 'Doors of Perception'. That evolution has for the most part, kept our minds on the here and now. <br /><br />"However, the value of a psi-talented person to a *tribe* is clearer. The tribe can survive better with at least one person who is psi talented, like a shaman. But that person on his or her own is likely to not be capable of taking care of themselves very well." <br /><br />I suppose one could argue that other similar examples exist in nature. A pack of wolves need to work together to hunt prey. So the same with a Shaman. He offers prescient advice, but cannot fight rival tribes, so other members protect him. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03791854711303345266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-68513540151460812982014-08-25T01:58:28.368-07:002014-08-25T01:58:28.368-07:00Again, this is precisely what Bem's protocol i...<i>Again, this is precisely what Bem's protocol is all about. He presented interesting results along with a standardized, well-controlled protocol, and then asked for lots of direct independent replications.</i><br /><br />That's not the same thing. There are still criticisms you can make about Bem's experimental protocols but you can make criticisms of any experimental protocol. But I entirely agree that you cannot accuse him of having not publishing it or that he was discouraging replication. That was a major point he made in his original study. <br /><br />What I'm talking about is the standards for meta-analysis and replication efforts. In that respect I believe we must be a lot stricter because it is frankly too easy to accumulate effect sizes of sometimes vaguely related experiments and produce a highly significant meta-effect. That's where I think EJW's point is clear that replication studies ought to employ preregistered protocols and, for more controversial topics (which goes well beyond psi research), adversarial collaborations.<br /><br /><i>There are many copies of Bem's software out there. No one has identified any problem with it. Ask him again for another copy.</i><br /><br />As I said, I asked someone who didn't want to share their copy and the reasons for that were compelling. If someone gave me something to be used by me, I wouldn't pass it on without permission either. But you are right, I should try contacting him again.<br /><br /><i>Advancements in psi studies have always tracked new standards and methodologies, the phenomena are still observed, and yet critics are never convinced. Why?</i><br /><br />I will acknowledge that psi researcher has been keeping track of new standards. Psychology in general gets a bad rap, if you ask me, as in my experience psychologists are typically more statistically savvy than some other fields in neuroscience. Bem has employed Bayesian hypothesis testing which is laudable. Many Bayesians no doubt disagree with how it was applied (the Wagenmakers review above discusses that) but that's another issue. <br /><br />So why are critics not convinced? I can't speak for others but at least for me the problem is that it is not about whether "phenomena are still observed". We can argue about the appropriate methodology (including the statistical inference) ad infinitum but this is never going to give you a definite answer. It never can because it's science, not math. <br /><br />The main problem I have with psi research is that its final conclusion is always that there remains something "unexplained." But this is inherent to all science but especially to biology and psychology. All models leave unexplained variance - if they don't you're doing something trivially wrong (like correlating the same measure in meters and centimeters). <br /><br />As such the psi conclusions are completely unsatisfying. In order to convince me at least the research would have to present far more evidence trying to explain the unexplained phenomenon, starting with the simplest possible model and slowly moving up. The simplest model is the null hypothesis that the unexplained variance is merely noise. This is clearly the assumption under which many skeptics operate and it is probably true in many situations but I'm sure there are other interesting effects. I think you are shutting yourself off from actually discovering what is going on by concluding "it must be psi." <br /><br />I am actually working on an essay about what level of evidence I would expect from psi claims. The draft is finished but it isn't published yet and I don't know yet whether it is more appropriate for a blog post or published in a journal. But it will come out eventually and I hope that will answer your question...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08650498486195818917noreply@blogger.com