Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[annnnoid]

It's sad, really. He's trying to present scientific arguments, without understanding how one validates experiments. Kinda like watching a five year old play against a chess grandmater and asking to be "kinged".

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the article either. Typical. You're betraying the tawdry side of your skeptic pedigree rather blatantly here.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the article either. Typical. You're betraying the tawdry side of your skeptic pedigree rather blatantly here.

Personal attacks aren't relevant. Particularly when they're completely irrelevant. I'm not a skeptic--I'm an Objectivist and a scientist.

That said, YOU have made ridiculous claims in this thread. That's what I've been addressing. YOUR arguments are unscientific, petulant, and flat-out wrong.

 

[Nonpareil]

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the article either. Typical. You're betraying the tawdry side of your skeptic pedigree rather blatantly here.

For those who have forgotten, the "article" is a blog post by a graduate student in physics.

Nowhere in the blog post does the author even attempt to address the concerns that the ganzfeld experiments' results are not valid, which is the primary complaint laid against them. Many examiners have pointed out huge flaws in the methodology that could have skewed the results. The numbers point to something strange happening, this is true - but the numbers themselves are not established as accurate.

There's also the whole issue that the ganzfeld experiments themselves do not contain any positive means of detecting psychic phenomena. Even assuming that the numbers are accurate, all they have done is show that the receivers are, for some reason, producing a better-than-chance hit rate at selecting the right picture out of four. In no way do they provide evidence of psychic phenomena.

So, no. Not particularly compelling, even if the numbers are valid. And the blog post does not, at any point, actually establish that the numbers are valid in the first place.

 

[Daylightstar]

... And the blog post does not, at any point, actually establish that the numbers are valid in the first place.

Is that true, annnnoid?

 

[Dancing David]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/supplement1.html

The 'claim' was not scientific, the statement 'the earth orbits the sun' is true.

Despite what some philosophers may say, it is a 1 for all common use of the phrases contained in it.

 

[Dancing David]

I doubt that he does, but most scientists don't—at least not explicitly. However, observation of how science works reveals that it is inherently Bayesian. That's why when some NASA postdoc thought she discovered bacteria that used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA, no other scientists (except maybe her coauthors) believed her; or when the OPERA lab measured neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, no one (not even the discoverers) believed the result.

this has nothing to do with Bayesian statistics to demonstrate ESP.

Both were found to fit with conventional theories and shown to be true, despite you misrepresentation of the facts.

The speed of light is subject to small variations in arrival times for because of HIP, the neutrinos did not travel faster than the speed of light despite your statement. And in fact if paid attention you would know why and how the result turned out the way it did. (Disproved)

The evidence from these experiments failed to overcome the prior probabilities against them. Likewise, science has not accepted the existence of ESP in spite of the large body of experiments (of which skeptics are mostly unaware) showing highly statistically significant effects.

********, they do not rise above the level for noise and you are exaggerating the data at best.

The prior probability of these phenomena is too low to be overcome by "ordinary" evidence, even a lot of it. Yet the amount of statistical evidence accumulated by parapsychologists in favor of ESP would be considered convincing for a more ordinary scientific claim, that is, one with a reasonable prior probability. Thus, scientists operate as Bayesians, even though they mostly don't do explicit Bayesian computations.

So show us this remarkable data that shows alleged ESP rises above statistical noise, then you don't need Bayesian statistics at all.

 

[Dancing David]

....you'll be providing links to these, right?

Mostly unlikely and more likely to be some meta analysis or worse ganzfeld imaginary results.

 

[Daylightstar]

At this point, I don't think there's any other rational explanation. annnnoid has a pet hypothesis, and is lashing out at anyone who dares question it. Pure pseudoscience.

Yep, I'm afraid you are right. It's typical for the entire paranormal community as well.
All they offer are disappointments and lots of word games.

 

[Dancing David]

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, and some interesting results from some scientific studies, but my point has always been that the probability of alien life is on par with ESP. There is so little evidence to go on, that the existence of one is as likely as the existence of the other.

In other words, if Princeton University conducts PEAR2, and conclusively finds that some humans have an ability to influence random trials to a very small degree (say to the extent of 1 coin flip for every million flips), I would be as surprised as if we found alien life on Europa, which is to say, not really surprised at all.

Um, no there are no good studies that demonstrate ESP, period.

 

[Dancing David]

It almost always is. If we do discover ESP abilities in people, I think they will manifest in an almost infinitesimally insignificant way. For example, some people might display a talent for remote viewing that is .000001% higher than what you would see by chance alone. Or some people might predict Zener cards a billionth of a percent more accurately than chance. It would be extremely hard to prove this.

I don't think there are X-men skulking around, hiding from para-psychologists.

Um, that would undetectable and is a silly hypothesis.

How many people have how many events that involves 1 in 10^11 probabilities on what time scales?

Unless you are counting chemical biology as Zener cards.

 

[Dinwar]

Yep, I'm afraid you are right. It's typical for the entire paranormal community as well.
All they offer are disappointments and lots of word games.

Agreed.

ESP would challange fundamental assumptions about how the universe works--and I'm talking assumptions that have been tested so much that they are as close to proven as you can get outside of mathematics (I'd say they're proven beyond any rational doubt). Yet the criteria for evidence used by the paranormal crowd is less than the criteria the scientific community uses for establishing a new species (one of the most run-of-the-mill activities in multiple fields). In science, the opposite is true--the more fundamental the assumptions you are violating, the more strict the criteria for acceptable data.

That's where my chess comparison came from, for anyone who's curious.

 

[annnnoid]

Personal attacks aren't relevant. Particularly when they're completely irrelevant. I'm not a skeptic--I'm an Objectivist and a scientist.

That said, YOU have made ridiculous claims in this thread. That's what I've been addressing. YOUR arguments are unscientific, petulant, and flat-out wrong.

I have made ridiculous claims! Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’m not the one who insists that science has the capacity to directly and definitively adjudicate subjective experience (and who consistently fails to provide the slightest substantiation for the claim).

The only way you can conclusively establish that an anomalous psychological event is fraudulent would be to hook up the individual to some variety of scanning technology that has the capacity to definitively adjudicate their subjective experience comprehensively in real time to the degree that it can provide an explicit representation of exactly what is occurring. IOW…if the ‘patient’ is experiencing ‘flight through heaven’, then scanning technology will generate, based on its ability to adjudicate neural correlates (in some intelligible way, shape, or form): ‘flight through heaven (or not, as the case may be).’

The fMRI (or whatever) will ‘show’ what the patient has experienced, which can then be compared to the patients interpretation of the event.

Thus…it will not be necessary for the individual to provide a description (…which is stupid anyway as a great many of these ‘events’ are described by those who experience them with one word: indescribable!). The scanning technology will provide it for you.

That is one of the fundamental potential functions of neural scanning technology. To ‘interpret’ neural events so the patient does not have to do it for you.

Is it really necessary to point out just how far neural scanning has to go before it gets to this point????.

…but that is what Nonpareil consistently insists is currently available (despite having been very effectively schooled by Dr. Rees). He invariably refuses to provide the slightest evidence to support this extraordinary claim.

Since you have now decided to defend his position, perhaps you’d be obliged to submit the evidence he consistently refuses to produce, otherwise I guess we’ll just have to put that Nobel prize back in the cupboard.

 

[annnnoid]

Is that true, annnnoid?

I’ve already told you I’m satisfied with the veracity of the procedures used by the author, I’m satisfied with the credibility of the author, and I’m satisfied with the conclusions that the author comes to.

You, and others, have – a number of times now – flat out accused the author of scientific fraud by using invalid data.

So are any of you prepared to back up your words and challenge the author, or are you content to just throw stones from the sidelines?

 

[Dinwar]

I have made ridiculous claims! Don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’m not the one who insists that science has the capacity to directly and definitively adjudicate subjective experience (and who consistently fails to provide the slightest substantiation for the claim).

Even assuming that this was a ridiculous claim--something that has never been established--that IN NO WAY precludes you from making a ridiculous claim. This is just mud-slinging in an attempt to distract us from the poor quality of your own arguments.

The only way you can conclusively establish that an anomalous psychological event is fraudulent would be to hook up the individual to some variety of scanning technology that has the capacity to definitively adjudicate their subjective experience comprehensively in real time to the degree that it can provide an explicit representation of exactly what is occurring.

Nonsense. If someone claims to be able to read my mind, and cannot tell what I'm thinking at a higher rate than chance would allow, I can conclude that they cannot read my mind. That's just one exampleGiven what I've said .

Is it really necessary to point out just how far neural scanning has to go before it gets to this point????.

Please do not confuse me with other people. That's a very annoying thing to do, and demonstrates a very slip-shod method of argument. I DO NOT believe that scanning technology can give us a 100% clear picture of the mind; I believe that such a concept is overly-reductionistic, and is akin to trying to learn ecology by studying tissue function.

Then again, I also recognize--which you apparently do not--that neurology isn't the only science studying the mind. Psychology and psychiatry are two others.

Since you have now decided to defend his position...

This is you cramming words into my mouth so hard your hand is somewhere around my colon. *I* get to make my arguments, and if you continue to refuse to accept that there is no sense in continuing to engage with you. There's already very little point in such engagement--I know that all that will happen if I disagree with you is that you'll insult me and refuse to provide any data,a s though attacking me personally has any bearing on the debate--but if you're not even willing to allow me to make my own arguments there is literally no point in discussing anything with you. It's no longer a discussion; you're handling both sides!

Besides, you're continuing to ignore my posts where I provided exactly what you're looking for. Your arguments display all the traits of the worst sort of pseudoscience.

 

[Dinwar]

I’ve already told you I’m satisfied with the veracity of the procedures used by the author, I’m satisfied with the credibility of the author, and I’m satisfied with the conclusions that the author comes to.

Your satisfaction is meaningless. Your ability to provide substantiating data is non-existent, so we are OBLIGED to disagree with you. Let me say that again so it's clear: without the data requested we cannot honestly agree with you, even if you are right.

 

[jaydeehess]

There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, and some interesting results from some scientific studies, but my point has always been that the probability of alien life is on par with ESP. There is so little evidence to go on, that the existence of one is as likely as the existence of the other.
.

I'll see your anecdotal evidence for ESP with anecdotal evidence for advanced alien life.
IOW, the "I was probed by the Greys", to my mind, is equal to the "I can know the future".

Now getting back to the established fact that this universe is demonstrably capable of actually producing an advanced life form versus the non-established existence of ESP....................

 

[beachnut]

Only in Bigfoot is ESP more probable than Advanced Alien Life. Are we advanced alien life to the universe.

Now all we need is a Bigfoot.

All that is needed now is a lot of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" to save ESP from the bit bucket.

 

[Nonpareil]

I have made ridiculous claims!

Yes. Yes, you have.

The only way you can conclusively establish that an anomalous psychological event is fraudulent would be to hook up the individual to some variety of scanning technology that has the capacity to definitively adjudicate their subjective experience comprehensively in real time to the degree that it can provide an explicit representation of exactly what is occurring. IOW…if the ‘patient’ is experiencing ‘flight through heaven’, then scanning technology will generate, based on its ability to adjudicate neural correlates (in some intelligible way, shape, or form): ‘flight through heaven (or not, as the case may be).’

The fMRI (or whatever) will ‘show’ what the patient has experienced, which can then be compared to the patients interpretation of the event.

Interesting that you seem to be admitting that this is theoretically possible. But I notice the escape hatch you have written in at the end, where this must then be compared to the patient's personal account to give wriggle room for arguments like "well he really was just not in any way you can detect".

More hiding behind "but you can't really prove it", despite all evidence to the contrary. Rejecting all evidence and all ability to draw reasonable conclusions from said evidence.

Oh, and for the record: I have never said that we currently possess that kind of capability. Annnnoid lacks the ability to differentiate between theoretical and practical situations in my posts, and confuses the idea of science being capable of determining such things with our current scientists being able to do it. He then attributes this failure to me and attempts to claim victory.

More straw men, in other words.

I’ve already told you I’m satisfied with the veracity of the procedures used by the author, I’m satisfied with the credibility of the author, and I’m satisfied with the conclusions that the author comes to.

Which is telling, given that the author's entire blog post fails to address in any way the actual issues. In fact, he seems entirely ignorant of them.

You, and others, have – a number of times now – flat out accused the author of scientific fraud by using invalid data.

No. We have said that we don't believe he is correct. There is a difference between being wrong and being a fraud. Your hyperbolic attempts to stir up unease do not change that.

So are any of you prepared to back up your words and challenge the author, or are you content to just throw stones from the sidelines?

No, annnnoid, we are not going to get into an email argument with a college student who lacks access to the experiment facilities and the like. If you think this experiment's data is valid despite the objections raised by people with actual access to the facilities, records, and other hard evidence about its many flaws, you need to show why.

Oh, yes. In before more juvenile personal attacks regarding a conversation years past.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I’ve already told you I’m satisfied with the veracity of the procedures used by the author, I’m satisfied with the credibility of the author, and I’m satisfied with the conclusions that the author comes to.

Very nice. Please feel free to demonstrate what it is, precisely, that you find compelling about Derakshani's blog post, and what specific, objective evidence for the existence of "ESP" is provided therein.

Ta, ever so.

You, and others, have – a number of times now – flat out accused the author of scientific fraud by using invalid data.

You really, really ought to learn what the simple English noun, "fraud", means if you intend to bandy it about so.

It has already been demonstrated that your claim that Dinwar accused you, or Derakhshani, of "outright fraud" is false.

Interestingly enough, a search of this thread does not result in a single post in which Daylightstar uses the term, which indicates that your post, above, is incorrect.

I have never accused you, or Derakhshani of fraud.

Praps you should read the thread for what it actually contains.

So are any of you prepared to back up your words and challenge the author, or are you content to just throw stones from the sidelines?

You, after all, came here, and, despite several good-byes and protestations about how little you care, you keep posting. Oddly enough, you seem to be so busy making personal arguments, and being uncivil, that you have yet to provide any support for the claims you have made.

Which particular studies do you find compelling as "demonstrations" of "ESP"?

Ta redux.

 

[jt512]

I am sorry to bring an old post up like this, but this thread is moving faster than I can keep up!

You lost me with this quote.

The propositions H1, there is a grue in my house, and H2 there isn't have equal probabilities to me because of my total ignorance about them. The logic is simple: I have no reason to believe that P(H1) > P(H0) and no reason to believe that P(H0) > P(H1), but P(H1) + P(H0) = 1; therefore, P(H1) = P(H0) = 0.5.

There is no reason to believe that P(H1) > P(H0), and there is also no reason to believe that P(H0) > P(H1), and this leads you to believe that P(H0) = P(H1). Why?

It's self-evident, isn't it? If I have no reason to believe that either H0 or H1 is more likely than the other, then I must believe that they are equally likely. The conclusion is logically necessary.

This is formalized by the principle of indifference, which says that if we have equal amounts of evidence for two propositions, we must assign them the same probability. No evidence for either of two propositions is just a special case of equal evidence.

I would have said there is no reason to believe any of these, so it would be impossible to assign a probability.

I would say that if you can't assign a prior probability to a proposition, then you can't learn about it, or at least you can't rationally assign a probability to it after you have collected evidence for (or against) it. Conversely, if you collect some data on the hypothesis, and do rationally assign a probability to the hypothesis after seeing the data, then you must have had a prior probability all along. Consider the following example.

You conduct an experiment and collect some data on a hypothesis, H1, and its complement, H0. You analyze the data using an appropriate statistical model and determine that the data are three times as likely under H1 than under H0. Now, let's say that on the basis of that experiment you conclude that H1 is three times as likely as H0. Then what you're telling me is all the information you have on these hypotheses came from the experiment; you knew nothing about them beforehand. Now what happens if I plug your numbers into Bayes' Theorem, work backwards, and calculate your prior probabilities? I get .5 for each hypothesis, just as the principle of indifference dictates.

If, on the other hand, you conclude that the relative probabilities of H1 and H0 are anything other than 3:1—that is, any ratio other than what the data told you—then you must be taking other information into account (or making a mistake). That is, you had a reason to believe one of the hypotheses was more likely all along. For instance, if you now believe that H1 is four times as probable as H0, and we plug your numbers into Bayes' Theorem, we find that your prior probability for H1 was not .50, but in fact .57, implying that you had a small preference for H1 over H0 from the start.

Also, when I read the Wikipedia article that you linked to, I find:

I do not think that ESP and the existence of alien life are possibilities that are indistinguishable except for their names, and for that reason it seems that the principle of indifference is not applicable here.

I agree.