Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Daylightstar]

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to admit that.

...but it very effectively trashes your continued insistence that anecdotal evidence is worthless. And if anecdotal evidence has been demonstrated to be of such inestimable value (as to definitively confirm the existence of one of the most prized phenomenon in the world)...then anecdotal evidence can legitimately be considered to have some value in evaluating reports of a phenomenon that is experienced by upwards of 50% of the worlds population.

Love can be observed, it's effects can be observed by upwards of 50% of the world's population ..... and more.

 

[jt512]

For instance a demonstration of the actual phenomenon which is tested...

I don't understand what that means. The ganzfeld experiments, if you believe the investigators' descriptions, are designed and carried out in a manner that should exclude all known ways by which subjects' guesses could be more successful than random chance (in the long run). If those ways are, in fact, ruled out, then how has the phenomenon not been demonstrated? And how would you demonstrate it, if not by experiments designed basically like these?

and/or demonstrably establishing parameters for the claimed phenomenon. Without demonstrably having established parameters for the claimed phenomenon, testing it generates meaningless data.

I don't know what you mean by "parameters" in this context.

Could you give an example of the subject of such a study?

Here's an example of an experimental psych study that I have read and is not behind paywall: Analytical Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief.

 

[Daylightstar]

... then anecdotal evidence can legitimately be considered to have some value in evaluating reports of a phenomenon that is experienced by upwards of 50% of the worlds population.

Actual ESP can unfortunately not be observed. No amount of anecdotes can change that.
Actual ESP remains un-observable..

 

[John Jones]

...so where, precisely (besides anecdotally)...has love been demonstrated to actually exist?

That's a ridiculous question. Please stop.

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't understand what that means. The ganzfeld experiments, if you believe the investigators' descriptions, are designed and carried out in a manner that should exclude all known ways by which subjects' guesses could be more successful than random chance (in the long run). If those ways are, in fact, ruled out, then how has the phenomenon not been demonstrated? And how would you demonstrate it, if not by experiments designed basically like these?

The issue is twofold. One, as has been pointed out multiple times, the ganzfeld researchers' word is not enough; multiple examiners have pointed out flaws in the methodology. Two, it doesn't actually detect psi. At best, it detects that something is happening (that's ignoring the methodological errors). That could be psi, or it could be literally anything else. That you personally cannot think of an alternative off the top of your head does not mean that there isn't one.

 

[jt512]

The issue is twofold. One, as has been pointed out multiple times, the ganzfeld researchers' word is not enough;

It seems strange that the investigators' word is good enough in other fields.

multiple examiners have pointed out flaws in the methodology.

Actually, I don't think anyone has made been able to establish that there are flaws in the more-recent ganzfeld studies. The studies look good on paper; better than typical studies in experimental psych. Parapsychologists have been good about incorporating the advice of critics into their methodology. Flaws were found in the meta-analysis itself, and a re-analysis was conducted, as I posted.

Two, it doesn't actually detect psi. At best, it detects that something is happening (that's ignoring the methodological errors). That could be psi, or it could be literally anything else. That you personally cannot think of an alternative off the top of your head does not mean that there isn't one.

Can you design a study that would demonstrate ESP if it existed?

 

[Nonpareil]

It seems strange that the investigators' word is good enough in other fields.

It isn't.

Literally every field of science is subject to this sort of review.

Actually, I don't think anyone has made been able to establish that there are flaws in the more-recent ganzfeld studies. The studies look good on paper; better than typical studies in experimental psych. Parapsychologists have been good about incorporating the advice of critics into their methodology. Flaws were found in the meta-analysis itself, and a re-analysis was conducted, as I posted.

Off the top of my head, I can name at least one, and I am sure there are others: David Marks pointed out insufficient soundproofing in the autoganzfeld experiments in 2000.

Can you design a study that would demonstrate ESP if it existed?

No.

That's one of the problems with trying to detect something that has no coherent definition or mechanism.

 

[jt512]

It seems strange that the investigators' word is good enough in other fields.

It isn't.

Literally every field of science is subject to this sort of review.

Then to be consistent, you'd have to not believe any experiment in any field, because ultimately you have to take the authors' word that they did what they said they did. Even pre-registering the study and making the data publicly available can't prevent investigators from utilizing questionable or even fraudulent procedures.

Actually, I don't think anyone has made been able to establish that there are flaws in the more-recent ganzfeld studies.

Off the top of my head, I can name at least one, and I am sure there are others: David Marks pointed out insufficient soundproofing in the autoganzfeld experiments in 2000.

As I understand it, the autoganzfeld experiments ended in 1997. The meta-analysis I posted doesn't include them, but picks up where the they left off. These post-autoganzfeld studies, the ones included in the Storm, Tressoldi et al meta-analysis, are the ones I was referring to as being high quality.

Can you design a study that would demonstrate ESP if it existed?

No.

That's one of the problems with trying to detect something that has no coherent definition or mechanism.

OK, but then it seems rather pointless to worry about the details of the experiments that have been done.

 

[tsig]

There is no science on the planet that can even begin to establish the phenomenology of ‘love’.

Period.

It is exists anecdotally, or it doesn’t exist. The credibility of anecdotal evidence is thereby established to have an enormous precedent. There are countless others.

Love is a human emotion, why do you insist that science must explain emotions?

 

[tsig]

Love can be observed, it's effects can be observed by upwards of 50% of the world's population ..... and more.

Billions of married couples are evidence of love.

 

[tsig]

Can you design a study that would demonstrate ESP if it existed?

That would be the job of the believers.

 

[Nonpareil]

Then to be consistent, you'd have to not believe any experiment in any field, because ultimately you have to take the authors' word that they did what they said they did. Even pre-registering the study and making the data publicly available can't prevent investigators from utilizing questionable or even fraudulent procedures.

Does not follow.

Peer review exists for a reason. Every study is subject to it. If it stands up to that review, its data is verified.

The ganzfeld experiments do not.

OK, but then it seems rather pointless to worry about the details of the experiments that have been done.

Does not follow.

That is exactly why the details should be examined so minutely.

 

[jt512]

Does not follow.

Peer review exists for a reason. Every study is subject to it. If it stands up to that review, its data is verified.

No way. The peer reviewers don't verify the data. If the data were fraudulent, it would be almost impossible for the fraud to be detected in the peer review process.

Does not follow.

That is exactly why the details should be examined so minutely.

No. It does follow. If you believe that a hypothesis cannot be demonstrated in any experiment, then there is absolutely no point in discussing the details of any experiment conducted to test that hypothesis. No experiment could change your mind.

 

[jt512]

That would be the job of the believers.

I agree. I was basically asking if he thinks that the hypothesis is not experimentally demonstrable in principle.

 

[annnnoid]

Actual ESP can unfortunately not be observed. No amount of anecdotes can change that.
Actual ESP remains un-observable..

The only way to ‘know’ love, is to personally observe / experience it.

Anecdotes are nothing more than personal observations.

Since ESP (if it occurs) quite obviously occurs exclusively within subjective experience, it is therefore explicitly amenable to personal / anecdotal observation…just like love.

Since you are prepared to admit that ‘love’ definitively exists only as a consequence of personal observation (unless you can provide some other way of establishing that it exists…and you can’t), you cannot deny that ESP is subject to the exact same logic since ESP occurs in exactly the same manner. As a subjective experience.

If you deny that anecdotal evidence is valid, then you have to deny that ‘love’ exists, because that is the only way we have of experiencing it. Anecdotally (personal observation / experience). There is no science that has the ability to measure the phenomenological reality that we call ‘love’.

In reality, of course, we - individually and collectively - generate conditions that mediate our subjective experience. Thus, ESP is a unique case. For obvious reasons.

 

[Nonpareil]

No way. The peer reviewers don't verify the data.

In this case, they don't need to. What peer review showed was that the ganzfeld experiments lacked sufficient controls for any given data to mean anything.

No. It does follow. If you believe that a hypothesis cannot be demonstrated in any experiment, then there is absolutely no point in discussing the details of any experiment conducted to test that hypothesis. No experiment could change your mind.

Your assumptions of my bias are noted, but irrelevant.

Psi lacks a coherent definition. Part of any experiment attempting to prove it, then, must be defining what it is that is being searched for. The ganzfeld experiments included a definition as "any anomalous transfer of information between human minds", or something to that effect.

It also contained no means of actually detecting this.

EDIT: The fact that I don't care to define psi means nothing. Nor does the fact that I have yet to see anyone else supply a coherent definition. If it truly exists, then someone should be able to define it, and to detect it.

 

[jsfisher]

Since ESP (if it occurs) quite obviously occurs exclusively within subjective experience, it is therefore explicitly amenable to personal / anecdotal observation.

Obviously? It is not so obvious to me. Telepathy, for example, lends itself to objective testing with reasonable controls.

 

[John Jones]

Then to be consistent, you'd have to not believe any experiment in any field, because ultimately you have to take the authors' word that they did what they said they did. Even pre-registering the study and making the data publicly available can't prevent investigators from utilizing questionable or even fraudulent procedures.
[...]

That's a preposterous claim. Have you got dog feces in your ears?

 

[jt512]

No way. The peer reviewers don't verify the data.

In this case, they don't need to. What peer review showed was that the ganzfeld experiments lacked sufficient controls for any given data to mean anything.

Huh? The ganzfeld meta-analysis passed peer review and was published in a mainstream experimental psych journal.

Your assumptions of my bias are noted, but irrelevant.

I have no problem with the view that ESP is not demonstrable by experiment in principle.

The ganzfeld experiments included a definition as "any anomalous transfer of information between human minds", or something to that effect.

It also contained no means of actually detecting this.

"Paranormal acquisition of information on the thoughts, feelings, or activities of another conscious being." Or as Bem puts it, "anomalous processes of information or energy transfers that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."

And I disagree with you that the experiments would be unable to detect that if it existed. If the experiments were conducted carefully enough, then a hit rate sufficiently greater than chance could only be attributable to a new phenomenon. So, when such an excess hit rate is found, the question becomes which of two competing hypotheses are more likely to explain the findings: that there is a new phenomenon or that the experiments were biased.

 

[jt512]

That's a preposterous claim. Have you got dog feces in your ears?

Do you even know what the claim was? It wasn't contained in the material you quoted.