Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Nonpareil]

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

The only way to "know" immolation is to set yourself on fire. So what?

Anecdotes are nothing more than personal observations.

Correct.

As such, they are not evidence of anything without actual verification.

Since ESP (if it occurs) quite obviously occurs exclusively within subjective experience

What is it with people who hold beliefs in things like this and not understanding what the word "subjective" means?

If ESP - or any other phenomena - occurs, then by definition it can be objectively detected and verified.

it is therefore explicitly amenable to personal / anecdotal observation…just like love.

You can have anecdotes about anything.

They still aren't evidence on their own. And anecdotes, despite your attempts at equivocation, are not equivalent to observation. They are claims of observation.

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 can't read, can you?

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.

"I'm not only committing the special pleading fallacy, I am cognizant of that and proud of it."

 

[Nonpareil]

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

Because the meta-analysis was fine. The numbers were not.

This is not a difficult concept. Everything that the meta-analysis did with the numbers was valid and the conclusions it drew were fine, assuming that the numbers were valid as well.

They were not.

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

Then you don't understand what the word "exists" means.

If ESP is not demonstrable, even in principle, then by definition it does not exist.

"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.

You've made my point for me. "A new phenomenon" (or that the experiment was simply flawed).

"A new phenomenon" is not necessarily psychic in nature.

 

[jaydeehess]

The ones I discussed here,

Same ones discussed here?

And then there is this http://www.csicop.org/si/show/evidence_for_psychic_functioning_claims_vs._reality/ concerning Utts

 

[jt512]

Because the meta-analysis was fine. The numbers were not.

This is not a difficult concept. Everything that the meta-analysis did with the numbers was valid and the conclusions it drew were fine, assuming that the numbers were valid as well.

They were not.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the ganzfeld studies in the meta-analysis were flawed. The only evidence you cited was for studies that predated those in the meta-analysis and didn't even use the same methodology.

Then you don't understand what the word "exists" means.

If ESP is not demonstrable, even in principle, then by definition it does not exist.

I disagree. If no experiment can discriminate between a known and an unknown phenomenon, it does not imply that unknown phenomenon doesn't exist. It implies that there are limits to the discriminating power of our experiments.

You've made my point for me. "A new phenomenon" (or that the experiment was simply flawed).

"A new phenomenon" is not necessarily psychic in nature.

By Bem's definition, the phenomenon need only be one "not currently explainable by known physical or biological mechanisms."

 

[jt512]

Same ones discussed here?

Not unless the author is psychic.

 

[annnnoid]

Correct.

As such, they are not evidence of anything without actual verification.

…so how do you objectively verify that someone is in love ( ** or you can substitute any one of those words on that list that you insisted science, at one time, had the ability to definitively adjudicate)?

What is it with people who hold beliefs in things like this and not understanding what the word "subjective" means?

If ESP - or any other phenomena - occurs, then by definition it can be objectively detected and verified.

So how do you objectively detect and / or verify that ‘love’ ( ** ) is occurring (without anecdotal evidence since you've just dismissed it as unreliable)?

You can have anecdotes about anything.

They still aren't evidence on their own. And anecdotes, despite your attempts at equivocation, are not equivalent to observation. They are claims of observation.

So if I anecdotally ‘inform’ my partner (verbally and / or non-verbally) that I love ( ** ) her, she may reasonably insist that such a demonstration cannot be trusted because, as you say, it is nothing more than a claim of an observation and it requires additional objective verification.

How does my partner acquire this 'objective verification'? Is there some new variety of Starsucks that has opened up that provides this service?

" Don't know if your partner actually loves you??? Bring him / her to your nearest Starsucks and plug him / her into the anal-retentiver and within 30 seconds you'll know clear as a pig in a blue sky that now is the time to ring or dump."

Do let us all know when you plan on arriving at a sane argument.

 

[annnnoid]

What is it with people who hold beliefs in things like this and not understanding what the word "subjective" means?

If ESP - or any other phenomena - occurs, then by definition it can be objectively detected and verified.

So how do you objectively detect and / or verify that ‘love’ ( ** ) is occurring?

This is way important Nonpareil. I am planning on becoming a billionaire with this knowledge. There isn’t a potential married couple in the world who wouldn’t pay through the nose to have this information before they get married.

…so lay it on us.

How do we objectively detect / verify the subjective phenomenon we call love?

You are making yet another outrageous claim (and I'm even going to refrain from quoting your 'staggeringly ignorant' accusation). So are you finally going to back it up...or not.

 

[Nonpareil]

You have yet to provide any evidence that the ganzfeld studies in the meta-analysis were flawed. The only evidence you cited was for studies that predated those in the meta-analysis and didn't even use the same methodology.

There are three sets of ganzfeld studies: the original ganzfeld studies, which were inconclusive at best and, yes, we have shown indications of flaws in; the autoganzfeld studies, the successor batch, which has had similar complaints levied against it; and a claimed replication of the autoganzfeld studies which has not been published or peer-reviewed.

To the best of my knowledge, only the first and second have had meta-analyses published, because the third has not even had normal results published. And, yes, we have shown evidence that both the first and second groups had complaints about their methodology.

I disagree. If no experiment can discriminate between a known and an unknown phenomenon, it does not imply that unknown phenomenon doesn't exist. It implies that there are limits to the discriminating power of our experiments.

No. You said "in principle". If no experiment can ever detect psi, even in principle, then by definition it does not exist.

If psi can be detected, but not right now, then there still isn't any evidence supporting it.

By Bem's definition, the phenomenon need only be one "not currently explainable by known physical or biological mechanisms."

Which is overly broad and could contain any number of non-psychic phenomena - a bias towards imagining certain things under the influence of a ganzfeld, for example.

…so how do you objectively verify that someone is in love ( ** or you can substitute any one of those words on that list that you insisted science, at one time, had the ability to definitively adjudicate)?

By observing them and seeing if their behavior is consistent with someone who is in love.

This is not hard.

So if I anecdotally ‘inform’ my partner (verbally and / or non-verbally) that I love ( ** ) her, she may reasonably insist that such a demonstration cannot be trusted because, as you say, it is nothing more than a claim of an observation and it requires additional objective verification.

Point one, that is not what an anecdote is. Point two, your partner is free to believe you or not, but if you think that she will decide to accept or reject your claim without considering observational evidence of your behavior, then you are delusional.

You are making yet another outrageous claim (and I'm even going to refrain from quoting your 'staggeringly ignorant' accusation).

Still harping on that?

Someone here is obsessive.

 

[annnnoid]

By Bem's definition, the phenomenon need only be one "not currently explainable by known physical or biological mechanisms."

It is worth pointing out that many neuroscientists currently admit that they have no idea how consciousness is generated from the physical activity of the brain (not to mention that there is nothing even closely resembling a clear understanding of what consciousness is or is capable of). Leaves an awful lot of room for ‘new phenomenon’….psychic or otherwise.

Also worth noting…that psychic activity does not, in fact, conflict with what currently passes for the known laws of physics (contrary to the hysterics that often accompany any investigations of it). There are some enormous ‘holes’ in the laws of physics at the most fundamental levels where such activity could, potentially, be accommodated (especially given the enormous gap that exists in understanding the relationship between the physical brain and cognitive events). It cannot, presently be confirmed…but at the same time it cannot, presently be dismissed either. It’s just convenient to ‘complain’ that, on the surface, it looks like psychic activity conflicts with everything in the universe (including my morning coffee). It doesn’t.

....and now it's late...and it looks like Nonpareil has vacated the premises. No more target practice. Off to bed I guess.

 

[annnnoid]

By observing them and seeing if their behavior is consistent with someone who is in love.

This is not hard.

So I am walking down the street …along with ten other people. How do I verify which ones are experiencing this thing called ‘love’.

C’mon…you’re the one making this stupid claim.

How…is…it…done?

What kind of behavior am I looking for? What…starry eyes (what do starry eyes look like?)…a ‘happy’ walk. Orange pants. Pink underwear. A ring. No ring. Do they hug people (I know folks who do lots of hugging…are they all experiencing ‘love’). Do they kiss people (I know folks who do lots of kissing…are they all experiencing ‘love’). Do they jump into bed and shag at every opportunity (I don’t know such folks…maybe I should).

You insist that it’s not hard…so…

How…is…it…done?

C’mon…I am very eager to make my first billion. You have the key to my future wealth.

Lay..it..on..me…Sherlock!

…and as soon as you provide that information…I want an objective way of verifying every single one of those other words (thousands of them, remember).

Or…we’re just going to have to conclude that, as usual, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

Still harping on that?

Someone here is obsessive.

‘staggeringly ignorant’....remember (I still wonder how that got past the mods).

 

[tsig]

So how do you objectively detect and / or verify that ‘love’ ( ** ) is occurring? This is way important Nonpareil. I am planning on becoming a billionaire with this knowledge. There isn’t a potential married couple in the world who wouldn’t pay through the nose to have this information before they get married.

…so lay it on us.

How do we objectively detect / verify the subjective phenomenon we call love?

You are making yet another outrageous claim (and I'm even going to refrain from quoting your 'staggeringly ignorant' accusation). So are you finally going to back it up...or not.

ESP.

 

[tsig]

It is worth pointing out that many neuroscientists currently admit that they have no idea how consciousness is generated from the physical activity of the brain (not to mention that there is nothing even closely resembling a clear understanding of what consciousness is or is capable of). Leaves an awful lot of room for ‘new phenomenon’….psychic or otherwise.

Also worth noting…that psychic activity does not, in fact, conflict with what currently passes for the known laws of physics (contrary to the hysterics that often accompany any investigations of it). There are some enormous ‘holes’ in the laws of physics at the most fundamental levels where such activity could, potentially, be accommodated (especially given the enormous gap that exists in understanding the relationship between the physical brain and cognitive events). It cannot, presently be confirmed…but at the same time it cannot, presently be dismissed either. It’s just convenient to ‘complain’ that, on the surface, it looks like psychic activity conflicts with everything in the universe (including my morning coffee). It doesn’t.

....and now it's late...and it looks like Nonpareil has vacated the premises. No more target practice. Off to bed I guess.

ESP of the gaps.

 

[Nonpareil]

It is worth pointing out that many neuroscientists currently admit that they have no idea how consciousness is generated from the physical activity of the brain (not to mention that there is nothing even closely resembling a clear understanding of what consciousness is or is capable of). Leaves an awful lot of room for ‘new phenomenon’….psychic or otherwise.

We've been over this. Aside from the fact that there are neuroscientists who are making great strides in that area (see Christof Koch, etc.), we still know that consciousness is material in origin.

Again. We know the brain produces consciousness. This has been addressed in multiple threads, but the shorthand for those who have missed these previous discussions is this: altering the brain alters consciousness, up to and including eliminating the "me" that many consider so central to the question. This leaves two options: either the brain is the source of consciousness or it is an interface for an entity of some sort which is at least partially external. The latter possibility lacks any supporting evidence and contradicts much of the evidence we do have, barring some sort of elaborate reciprocal relationship between receiver and transmission which would effectively eliminate any possibility of evidence in favor of the proposition.

Also worth noting…that psychic activity does not, in fact, conflict with what currently passes for the known laws of physics (contrary to the hysterics that often accompany any investigations of it). There are some enormous ‘holes’ in the laws of physics at the most fundamental levels where such activity could, potentially, be accommodated (especially given the enormous gap that exists in understanding the relationship between the physical brain and cognitive events). It cannot, presently be confirmed…but at the same time it cannot, presently be dismissed either. It’s just convenient to ‘complain’ that, on the surface, it looks like psychic activity conflicts with everything in the universe (including my morning coffee). It doesn’t.

Well, yes. This is technically true, in the same sense that magic technically doesn't conflict with any known laws of physics.

The problem is that this is because the definition of magic - and of psychic phenomena - is so vague and incoherent that it doesn't really conflict with anything. There isn't any defined mechanism in place which could conflict. But by the same token, there is necessarily no evidence supporting such phenomena.

So you're still stuck with absolute diddly for evidence.

So I am walking down the street …along with ten other people. How do I verify which ones are experiencing this thing called ‘love’.

C’mon…you’re the one making this stupid claim.

How…is…it…done?

What kind of behavior am I looking for? What…starry eyes (what do starry eyes look like?)…a ‘happy’ walk. Orange pants. Pink underwear. A ring. No ring. Do they hug people (I know folks who do lots of hugging…are they all experiencing ‘love’). Do they kiss people (I know folks who do lots of kissing…are they all experiencing ‘love’). Do they jump into bed and shag at every opportunity (I don’t know such folks…maybe I should).

You insist that it’s not hard…so…

How…is…it…done?

C’mon…I am very eager to make my first billion. You have the key to my future wealth.

Lay..it..on..me…Sherlock!

…and as soon as you provide that information…I want an objective way of verifying every single one of those other words (thousands of them, remember).

Or…we’re just going to have to conclude that, as usual, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

Son, it is not my job to define for you every single action that may be taken as a sign of love. Aside from the fact that it is an exceptionally complex emotion that has varying signs from person to person and thus each case must be considered individually, which would make the whole thing an exercise in futility, you don't actually care.

You know full well that emotions can be observed, and that behavioral evidence is very different from anecdotes. I would hope - but don't actually believe - that at this point you also understand the whole matter of difference in degrees of formality. But you don't care, because you're just attempting the same thing you always do: applying unreasonable standards of evidence and demanding that others spoon-feed you proofs of things that have been known for years so that you can avoid admitting that you're wrong.

Because that would entail admitting that anecdotes are not evidence. And if anecdotes are not evidence, then even your blatant double standard when it comes to rigorousness can't go low enough to pretend that they're evidence in favor of ESP.

Moving goalposts and hiding behind "but you can't really prove it" is all you ever do.

It is not particularly convincing.

 

[jt512]

There are three sets of ganzfeld studies: the original ganzfeld studies, which were inconclusive at best and, yes, we have shown indications of flaws in; the autoganzfeld studies, the successor batch, which has had similar complaints levied against it; and a claimed replication of the autoganzfeld studies which has not been published or peer-reviewed.

To the best of my knowledge, only the first and second have had meta-analyses published, because the third has not even had normal results published. And, yes, we have shown evidence that both the first and second groups had complaints about their methodology.

Your knowledge is almost 20 years out of date. The article by Hyman you linked to was written in 1996. In the meta-analysis that I linked to, published in 2010 (in a peer-review experimental psychology journal), the only included ganzfeld studies were those published from 1997 on, all post-autoganzfeld.

Which is overly broad and could contain any number of non-psychic phenomena - a bias towards imagining certain things under the influence of a ganzfeld, for example.

No. Bem's definition of psi is not overbroad; yours is overnarrow (if that is even a word). Not all parapsychologists believe that there has to be an "immaterial" explanation for purported psi phenomena, only that these phenomena are not currently explained. If it is ever discovered that humans can detect the thoughts of others by electromagnetic forces, then Bem and parapsychologists like him will feel vindicated.

 

[Aepervius]

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

Hu where did you get that ?

My second article was about verifying previous result about a thione compound and showing that the previous team must have had a methodology error opr contaminated compound....

Verifying happen all the time. It is just not sexy to report.

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.

Sigh. I have followed this from time to time over decades, and every time somebody state the latest batch of flaws have been corrected. I am unfortunately not expert enough in that domain, it is just that it is .... "funny".

I'l wait for ESRY or other expert to pipe on this really.

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

Depends on which ESP you are speaking of. But my first step before starting the study would be to go onto skeptic forum and prestidigator forums, and try to harden the **** out of protocol until everybody agrees it is solid. Which almost never happen with ESP studies.

 

[Aepervius]

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.

Peer review check the methodology, pitfalls in protocol. Something which is sorely lacking with ESP studies.

 

[Nonpareil]

Your knowledge is almost 20 years out of date. The article by Hyman you linked to was written in 1996. In the meta-analysis that I linked to, published in 2010 (in a peer-review experimental psychology journal), the only included ganzfeld studies were those published from 1997 on, all post-autoganzfeld.

Fair enough. I retract my previous objections, and instead point you to the fact that your linked meta-analysis - which I will re-link here for future reference - comes complete with its own rebuttal. Pages 16 and onward contain Hyman's critique.

He points out errors made in the meta-analysis itself, such as discarding outliers which would seem to go against the psi hypothesis while including those that do without apparent justification, but the main thrust of it appears to be this bit here:

Autoganzfeld II meets the criteria that Storm et al. (2010) imply will achieve the desired outcome. It is a ganzfeld experiment that is clearly in line with the standard ganzfeld procedure. Although the participants did not have prior experience in parapsychology experiments, 91% reported having had psychic experiences, and 70% practiced a mental discipline. Just as important, this replication attempt had adequate power. If one focuses on the dynamic targets, which had a hit rate of 37%, and accounted for all the significant hitting in the Autoganzfeld I, the power was 94% for the formal sample of 151 trials and over 98% for the total sample of 209 trials.

For the formal trials, the hit rate was 26.5%, and for the total of 209 trials, the hit rate was 25.8% (chance 25%). The authors correctly conclude that this attempted replication failed.

This would seem to be a death blow to the ganzfeld experiments' validity as evidence for psi, as the Autoganzfeld II experiments - the one which purportedly had better controls - turned up nothing.

The rest is largely statistical analysis, which is over my head, but he points out inconsistencies in the methods used for selecting studies to include in the meta-analysis which would skew the results in favor of psi, along with pointing out that meta-analysis in and of itself is not necessarily evidence.

No. Bem's definition of psi is not overbroad; yours is overnarrow (if that is even a word).

I do not have a definition of psi, beyond "vaguely supernatural mental abilities". I leave it to those who actually believe in it to define it more rigorously.

And regardless, the experiment still contains no actual means to detect any psi phenomena. All it does is notice if the hit rate is different from what we would expect from chance. Leaping to "it must be psychic" from that is a non sequitur.

 

[Pixel42]

They’re hardly credible studies of anything other than that the respondents were incompetent fools. That all of them failed to convince anyone of anything can hardly be a surprise. AFAIC…anyone who attempts such an idiotic challenge is a fraud

Frauds avoid the MDC like the plague. That was the point of creating it: to demonstrate that the likes of Uri Gellar and Sylvia Brown are not prepared to put their claims to a fair test.

The only people who apply are those who are genuinely convinced they have paranormal powers because of anecdotal evidence. They are always shown to have been fooled by their fallible perceptions/memories and cognitive biases.

As you can see from the quotes I’ve included from Nonpareil and Pixel42…there have been claims made that there are explanations for these anecdotes. Presumably, since they’re not prepared to accept that any variety ESP even exists, they will insist that their explanations of some variety of pathology are, in fact, axiomatic (they cover every possible instance in one way or another).

The explanation is not 'some variety of pathology', it is that the people who make these reports are, for the most part, honestly mistaken. There are a small percentage who are frauds and another small percentage who are mentally ill (see the occasional sad thread started here by schizophrenics who are sure they are experiencing genuine telepathy) but the vast majority are perfectly healthy and functional. They are simply overestimating the reliability of human senses and cognitive abilities, and interpreting their experiences on the mistaken assumption that they are infallible.

The evidence for this explanation is that whenever we eliminate these sources of error by using the scientific method these supposed paranormal phenomena cease to occur.

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

...but it very effectively trashes your continued insistence that anecdotal evidence is worthless.

Anecdotal evidence is not worthless and there are plenty of everyday circumstances where it is adequate to draw a reasonably safe conclusion.

Anecdotal evidence has often been the first indication that there is something of interest happening which may repay more careful study, but it is never sufficient to establish the existence of any phenomenon because of all the ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves into thinking we see patterns that are not really there.

There was anecdotal evidence that willow bark could reduce pain and inflammation; careful testing confirmed this and then identified the active ingredient.There was anecdotal evidence that homeopathic remedies were effective treatments for many ailments; careful testing showed they were not.

ESP has, so far at least, followed the latter path. Until and unless there is objective evidence to the contrary, assuming that it is an artifact of the many ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves is the only reasonable position to take.

 

[Nonpareil]

Anecdotal evidence is not worthless and there are plenty of everyday circumstances where it is adequate to draw a reasonably safe conclusion.

Anecdotal evidence has often been the first indication that there is something of interest happening which may repay more careful study, but it is never sufficient to establish the existence of any phenomenon because of all the ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves into thinking we see patterns that are not really there.

There was anecdotal evidence that willow bark could reduce pain and inflammation; careful testing confirmed this and then identified the active ingredient.There was anecdotal evidence that homeopathic remedies were effective treatments for many ailments; careful testing showed they were not.

ESP has, so far at least, followed the latter path. Until and unless there is objective evidence to the contrary, assuming that it is an artifact of the many ways in which we know we can inadvertantly fool ourselves is the only reasonable position to take.

For clarity's sake, I will make one last post before retreating to bed for the night.

I am in complete agreement with Pixel42's post above, but it should be understood that I differentiate between evidence - something that provides actual weight towards a conclusion - and reason to investigate.

Anecdotes are the latter. Taken on their own, they mean nothing other than that there might be something going on. Considered with observational evidence, they may lead to a conclusion being drawn - but that is due to weight of the evidence, not the anecdote; the anecdote was the catalyst for decision-making, not the reason any particular conclusion was drawn (assuming the thinker is not being irrational).

Take, for example, the following hypothetical: you live in a poor neighborhood with a high crime rate, and recently someone has been stealing big-screen TVs. You have a big-screen TV. You are also married to a partner who is not given to unreasonable bouts of panic or lying.

While you are away from home, your partner telephones you to say that your big-screen TV has been stolen. You draw the provisional conclusion that they are telling the truth, based on the above evidence; given the circumstances, this is not an unreasonable conclusion to make.

Anecdotes can indicate that something is true. They can also be entirely false. It falls on the actual evidence to determine which.

 

[Daylightstar]

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?
...

It's not like this 'ganzfeld' has been demonstrated to exist. It doesn't even have valid indications for it's claimed existence, just anecdotes and fantasy.

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

The extent of the effect and/or the way this effect takes hold.
Such studies are a bit like a 10 year old constructing a strangely elaborate looking antenna, attaches a microphone and a loudspeaker, and fantasizes he can now communicate with Martians.

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

Here, the data consists of cognitive responses to mundane stimuli. In that sence, the data iteslf is not invalid. You could ask whether the use of that data is valid, in that whether that data can measure the main hypothesis.
Looks like this study isn't going to 'go places'.