tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post8883500042997434254..comments2024-01-26T00:50:50.752-08:00Comments on Entangled Minds: My comments on Alcock's comments on Bem's precognition articleDean Radinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-48678846575532774152011-02-05T04:35:31.215-08:002011-02-05T04:35:31.215-08:00I had a quick look at Mr Novella's article. S...I had a quick look at Mr Novella's article. Some comments are:<br /><br />He says that Bem's study should be replicable, be stated as preliminary research and use Bayesian stats. Bem states explicitly in his paper that his studies are specifically designed to be replicable. Bem says he hasn't used Bayesian stats specifically in order to enhance its replicability. <br /><br />Mr Novella makes some assumptions about what Bem's results purport to show - namely that effect can precede cause. This is not what Bem shows - he shows that memory can appear to work backwards but that he doesn't know how that can be. That's it. Nothing else. Skeptics like Mr Novella are often the ones who feel that such a phenomenon is extraordinary and make wild and unjustified (by the empirical evidence) claims about what is being shown. Bem doesn't do this. Mr Novella does.<br /><br />Yes Bem's results have a small effect size. However, interestingly, he can increase the effect size by for instance asking subjects to visualise words (which enhances memory). This is I think the most telling aspect of Bem's research. It leads to lots of new experiments - do people that have a better backwards memory for faces have a better forward memory for faces etc etcHelenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06173554086029356276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-83970582525608629252011-02-04T16:08:58.511-08:002011-02-04T16:08:58.511-08:00I think this debunker, Steven Novella, needs to ha...I think this debunker, Steven Novella, needs to have expose done on the article he just posted about Bem's work:<br /><br />http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=2701<br /><br />I hope it's done here and maybe "Jime" can post it on his site.<br /><br />http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/<br /><br />I know people will say why bother since it's not a science site. But Novella is biased, deceptive and when people search the net then they will have a counter and expose on him and his post as well.Mark Szlazakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359238216464029620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-2012787684148070912011-01-31T21:24:34.888-08:002011-01-31T21:24:34.888-08:00Despite the NYTimes article's implication that...Despite the NYTimes article's implication that Bem's findings would be nullified if it were subjected to Bayesian statistical analysis, the data apparently still holds up after Bayesian reevaluation. In "An assesment of evidence for feeling the future with a discussion of Bayes factor and signifiance testing," by Jeffrey N. Rouder & Richard D. Morey (JPSP in press, 05/01/11), the authors state: <br /><br />"...We find the evidence that people can feel the future with neutral and erotic stimuli to be slight, with Bayes factors of 3.23 and 1.57, respectively. There is, however, a surprising degree of evidence for the hypothesis that people can feel the future with emotionally-valenced nonerotic stimuli, with a Bayes factor of about 40...Hence, while the evidence provided by Bem is certainly worthy of notice, it should not be sufficient to sway an appropriately skeptical reader." <br /><br />Granted, Bem's findings have indeed been deflated - but not to the extent of nullification, and certainly not to the extent to justify a cavalier dismissal of the entire study's evidentiary value, as in NYTimes article. <br /><br />Given that the exorbitantly "skeptical" community has expended all of its (usually) unwarranted objections, and has resorted to stressing how classical methods of statistical inference (i.e., those typically used in science, for better or worse) should be superseded by Bayesian statistical inference, I wonder if parapsychologists will begin using the latter method to evaluate data in future studies (I know physicist Edwin May already uses Monte Carlo bayesian analysis in his studies...) I doubt this would quell the "skeptics'" dogged crusade to halt scientific inquiry into parapsychology, but I do think the criticisms of using classical statistics - in any area of science - are valid to some extent.vittoriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03788123215111314581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-77152108101023084662011-01-30T16:59:53.525-08:002011-01-30T16:59:53.525-08:00The last line of the NYTimes article reads: "...The last line of the NYTimes article reads: "What are the odds, for instance, that the journal would have published Dr. Bem’s study if it had come to the ho-hum conclusion that ESP still does not exist?"<br /><br />Historically the odds are much greater that a mainstream journal would quickly publish a null psi effect than it would even consider publishing a positive psi effect. <br /><br />Witness the <i>Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,</i> which published a paper reporting a null psi effect a few years ago, and yet when I recently submitted a paper reporting a neuroscience experiment involving presentiment, with a positive result, they didn't even send it out for review. Another example is the "experiment" by a child published in the <i>New England Journal of Medicine</i> that purportedly showed that Therapeutic Touch didn't work, even though that was the wrong conclusion.<br /><br />See here for a more comprehensive list of media commentary on the Bem article, some positive and some negative:<br /><br />http://www.thewop.org/?p=1325Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-74550328819878571842011-01-30T16:47:13.760-08:002011-01-30T16:47:13.760-08:00Bad news for Daryl Bem:
http://tinyurl.com/5rp29j...Bad news for Daryl Bem:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/5rp29jpEnfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-32776475918888438952011-01-29T13:58:58.552-08:002011-01-29T13:58:58.552-08:00@dawnow,
Good point and Rupert Sheldrake has done...@dawnow,<br /><br />Good point and Rupert Sheldrake has done similar experiments with animals. I think it's related to biology because consciousness evolves from simple to complex. I think consciousness is a force and this means there's a field associated with this force that extends outside of the body.<br /><br />Humans have a complex consciousness that gives us access to this field. There's a few theories on this and one I like is the Cemi Field Theory by Johnjoe MsFadden.<br /><br />Here's more on the Cemi Field Theory<br />http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htmhwimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877517153496359800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-4229010242068287642011-01-29T11:49:20.357-08:002011-01-29T11:49:20.357-08:00A little off-topic: The latest issue of the Journa...A little off-topic: The latest issue of the Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration (Vol 24 No. 4) contains a paper on a very successful presentiment study with animals, rather than with humans. The title is Anticipitory Alarm Behavior in Bengalese Finches, by Fernando Alvarez at the Doñana Biological Station, Seville. <br /><br />The research demonstrates a precognitive phenomenon with good effect sizes (P < .0012 for female finches). This indicates that human unconscious precognition could be an old evolutionary mechanism which obviously confers a survival advantage. The question then arises about how a Darwinistic purely physical random genetic variation plus selection mechanism can produce psi.<br /><br />Unfortunately the paper is only available to subscribers at this time (though past issues are online at the SSE website). <br /><br />Abstract: The ability for short-term alarm precognition was explored in Bengalese finches. During the experimental trials, subjects were put individually for 20 minutes in a testing cage and in the last 5 minutes a 15-second video clip of a slowly crawling snake was shown to them in a TFT screen. The video clip was presented at random starting out from 20 possible randomly predetermined options. During the control trials, no snake video clip was shown to the birds. Subjects were filmed, and, in a double-blind fashion, the frequency of their display of alarm was registered 0-3, 3-6, and 6-9 seconds immediately before stimulus presentation and before the same moment of the control trial for each bird. As a second control, behavior frequency was also registered immediately before the 10-minute point after initiation of the experimental trial. The results showed that the birds reacted to the snake video clip at least 9 seconds before presentation, the frequency of the alarm display during that period being higher than that during both controls. Females and males did not differ significantly in any of the measures.dawnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05448082256829038405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-54308121616992242032011-01-26T09:36:40.660-08:002011-01-26T09:36:40.660-08:00Marcus, for free copies of "Mysterious Minds:...Marcus, for free copies of "Mysterious Minds: The Neurobiology of Psychics, Mediums, and Other Extraordinary People", try the library and Google also "comes to the rescue", at least for readers, with most book pages online to view:<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=p_vHZCr0XrYC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&dq=%22Mysterious+Minds:+The+Neurobiology+of+Psychics,+Mediums,+and+Other+Extraordinary+People%22&source=bl&ots=ihW4Enz5r6&sig=kwa0hoCXDlFwfWeuJlLNfFDV1xw&hl=en&ei=hlpATZW5DIGosQPB0OGTCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=falseMark Szlazakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359238216464029620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-83315118887752824622011-01-26T01:03:58.812-08:002011-01-26T01:03:58.812-08:00Dean,
Have you heard of anyone trying to replicat...Dean,<br /><br />Have you heard of anyone trying to replicate Bem's Retroactive Priming experiments? I think they were experiments 3 and 4.<br /><br />These experiments really stood out to me because I think they're solid evidence that supports precognition.hwimberlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10877517153496359800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-68710964000973813852011-01-25T17:13:11.570-08:002011-01-25T17:13:11.570-08:00They really should have a Kindle version of this b...They really should have a Kindle version of this book, and all academic books for that matter. There are a lot of researchers (like me) and laymen who would buy such books if the price was more reasonable. As it is, paying $45 makes me think twice. The pricing largely limits the book to libraries and academic institutions. I have a book published via an academic publisher and it's the same price, which is rather disappointing to me. Oh well, when I get the re-printing rights after a few years, I'll put out a Kindle edition!Marcus T. Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015648874488332379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-84535816332070785292011-01-25T12:59:10.377-08:002011-01-25T12:59:10.377-08:00Actually, the editors (Stan Krippner and Harris Fr...Actually, the editors (Stan Krippner and Harris Friedman) are both very favorable about psi. They worked on an earlier book entitled "Mysterious Minds: The Neurobiology of Psychics, Mediums, and Other Extraordinary People" (which I also recommend), for which my historical overview chapter was originally intended. As they were working on the Mysterious Minds book it became so huge, with so many fine contributions, that they had to split it into two. The "debating" volume became the second book.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-55072023606898396242011-01-25T11:43:57.367-08:002011-01-25T11:43:57.367-08:00>That would be a question for the book editors....>That would be a question for the book editors. I just wrote two chapters, as requested. Other anthologies are in the works that will focus more on evidence and valid criticisms, and less on predictable complaints by professional skeptics.<br /><br />The book editors must have been biased from the beginning. Calling it a real "debate" seems incorrect. The book is dominated by the skeptics in terms of sheer volume of writing. Based on the table of contents "Debating Psychic Experience: Human Potential or Human Illusion?" contains 11 chapters, epilogues, postscripts, etc. by seven skeptics versus 4 chapters by two proponents.dawnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05448082256829038405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-69676672554506371342011-01-24T22:26:28.521-08:002011-01-24T22:26:28.521-08:00> this article about when we should be wary of ...> this article about when we should be wary of questionable medical conclusions and those in other sciences.<br /><br />Yes, I'm sure in an ideal world with unlimited resources that basic experimental research in all domains can be improved, including methods of statistical inference. But we don't live in that world. In any case, at least for psi research the appropriate use of statistics was a hot topic three quarters of a century ago, but it was settled long ago. Bringing it to the fore again is legitimate only in the sense that we should all be aware of frequentist and Bayesian methods, and their limitations. <br /><br />In particular, while Bayesian approaches can be useful in some applications, they are not without their own problems. They make it far too easy to hide behind one's prejudices, most of which are driven by acceptance of current theories. This can make it so difficult to accept novel ideas that it virtually guarantees that science would come to a screeching halt if only those methods were considered valid.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-18645690096369763962011-01-24T22:16:02.566-08:002011-01-24T22:16:02.566-08:00> Why wasn't other researchers like Sheldra...> Why wasn't other researchers like Sheldrake or Bem there? Why not someone like Jessica Utts? Any comments?<br /><br />That would be a question for the book editors. I just wrote two chapters, as requested. Other anthologies are in the works that will focus more on evidence and valid criticisms, and less on predictable complaints by professional skeptics.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-67454362991291344132011-01-24T21:05:03.677-08:002011-01-24T21:05:03.677-08:00Hi Dean,
Since this is off topic you may approve ...Hi Dean,<br /><br />Since this is off topic you may approve this or not as your inclination dictates, but I wondered if you had any reaction to, or were aware of any other parapsychologists' public reactions to, this article about when we should be wary of questionable medical conclusions and those in other sciences. The article is not about parapsychology per se, but the issues it raises could seemingly be extended to cover parapsychological studies as well:<br /><br />"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John P. A. Ioannidis<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/Keith Augustinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16718427136116646031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-71992030595319425342011-01-22T07:16:22.314-08:002011-01-22T07:16:22.314-08:00Alcock did new critics to Bem:
http://www.csicop....Alcock did new critics to Bem:<br /><br />http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/<br />response_to_bems_commentsEnfant Terriblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08363106780909274692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-73911033373608134132011-01-21T08:05:02.501-08:002011-01-21T08:05:02.501-08:00Hi Dean: Slightly off topic but since you mention ...Hi Dean: Slightly off topic but since you mention the book "Debating Psychic Experience" I have a question/observation about this (in many ways excellent)book.<br /><br />In the two main sections, Presentations and Rebuttals there are two proponents (you and Chris French)and four counteradvocates.<br />This doesn't seem really fair. Especially since only one of the proponents (you) are actually directly doing research and Chris French, even though a great proponent have a tendency to come out as slightly angry and emotional. <br />Why wasn't other researchers like Sheldrake or Bem there? Why not someone like Jessica Utts? Any comments?Santehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05329623940144841230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-76214132684637240702011-01-20T21:29:18.675-08:002011-01-20T21:29:18.675-08:00See the previous comment for a link to the success...See the previous comment for a link to the successful Bem replication. I think it's too soon to comment on the replications. Not enough of them have been formally published yet to see if any patterns are emerging.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-12393804674027056432011-01-20T20:57:45.461-08:002011-01-20T20:57:45.461-08:00Great Interview with Professor Schooler, Dean. Loo...Great Interview with Professor Schooler, Dean. Looking forward to the presentiment meta-analysis (where ever it gets published, hopefully in Science).<br />Schooler mentioned a failed replication of one of Bem's experiments. This was a surprise given his success (at least, initial success!) with earlier precog type experiments. What's your take on the success of Bem replications? You mentioned one successful replication and Alexander Bethany has posted a successful experiment (was this the one you referred to?).<br />It's certainly encouraging when mainstream researchers such as Schooler take an open minded interest in psi phenomena.MickyDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05798927295708682347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-81532321576780956182011-01-20T13:16:32.484-08:002011-01-20T13:16:32.484-08:00http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id...http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1715954<br /><br />Bem replicationSantehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05329623940144841230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-49069220313085320692011-01-13T22:05:19.197-08:002011-01-13T22:05:19.197-08:00Julio Siqueira, I read tour post. It feels good to...Julio Siqueira, I read tour post. It feels good to move on. MarcusMarcus T. Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15015648874488332379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-20308203574886787272011-01-13T17:59:58.510-08:002011-01-13T17:59:58.510-08:00> Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Out...> Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage<br /><br />The Bem article is seen as horrific to some orthodox thinkers whose reactions only display a disappointing failure of imagination. In context the article is seen as a clever twist on a long line of similar studies with similar results. <br /><br />Those who reject precognition out of hand because it violates well accepted scientific fundamentals never seem to explain what fundamentals are in jeopardy. In fact, nothing is in jeopardy. The scientific understanding of fundamentals such as time, space, causality, etc., have all drastically changed over the last century. Critics seem fond of equating absolute reality with common sense. Perhaps they should have spent more time in their science classes.<br /><br />Besides the failure of imagination, op-eds like the NYT article harm the spirit of science because it implies, and other op-eds have stated this more forcefully, that controversial topics <i>should not be published</i> in mainstream journals. This kind of thinking sustains ideological prejudices, which have no place in science. It also threatens the editorial process, which is exactly why it is so difficult to publish psi studies in the mainstream. Some would like to believe that it isn't a matter of prejudice, and that the work simply isn't good enough. But anyone who actually knows the best literature knows that this is false.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-10151404879298989002011-01-13T16:52:02.477-08:002011-01-13T16:52:02.477-08:00D.Radin, please do you have any comments on this a...D.Radin, please do you have any comments on this article: Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage<br />http://tinyurl.com/6665cfe<br />Thank You!levishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08157527088810499379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-49657290642486964962011-01-13T16:34:59.301-08:002011-01-13T16:34:59.301-08:00This is on a completely different note but have yo...This is on a completely different note but have you seen this research? http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04629730211685995410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16158865.post-65025996819386734732011-01-13T14:56:21.299-08:002011-01-13T14:56:21.299-08:00> at least some of Bem's results could be e...> at least some of Bem's results could be explained by micro-PK as an alternate to precognition ...<br /><br />Yes, when the random selections are susceptible to change. If a deterministic random system is used, the likelihood of PK is reduced. When a true RNG is used, it is possible to infer PK vs. precognition based on what images come up. E.g., in my presentiment tests I've checked to see whether people are getting more erotic images than gory images, assuming that most people would prefer the former. A few individual subjects received significantly more erotic images, but overall there was no indication that people were able to bias the results to get what they preferred.Dean Radinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280noreply@blogger.com