Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?

[Donn]

.. He demands .. "conclusive" proof against any of his pet theories, but in the same breath says that, since no such proof exists, even such flimsy "evidence" as anecdotes must be admitted in its favor.
..
So long as it isn't conclusively disproven, he asserts, we must admit its possibility - and if we must admit its possibility, we must admit all these anecdotes as evidence.

I think of this as the open door argument: You cannot conclusively prove that a door is closed, it may be *slightly* open. Therefore all doors are slightly open. Therefore all doors are wide open at all times.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
An empty denial.

1) X exists.
2) X doesn't exist.

No valid chain of logic in between. That sure sounds like contradictory assertion to me.

The quote below is what this leads back to:

...
Gravity leprechauns: invisible, undetectable leprechauns that rush around the universe moving everything that exists in such a way as to be indistinguishable from Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity does not exist. It's all gravity leprechauns.

But gravity leprechauns don't exist. Do you see my point yet?
...

I guess Aridas didn't get the point yet. And yet, it's so easy to grasp.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Although Utts and I — in our capacities as coevaluators of the Stargate project — evaluated the same set of data, we came to very different conclusions. If Utts’s conclusion is correct, then the fundamental principles that have so successfully guided the progress of science from the days of Galileo and Newton to the present must be drastically revised. Neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics in their present versions can cope with a world that harbors the psychic phenomena so boldly proclaimed by Utts and her parapsychological colleagues.
.....

Conclusions
When we examine the basis of Utts’s strong claim for the existence of psi, we find that it relies on a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated. What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful.

Utts does assert that the findings from parapsychological experiments can be replicated with well-controlled experiments given adequate resources. But this is a hope or promise. Before we abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations, we will require more than a promissory note. We will want, as is the case in other areas of science, solid evidence that these findings can, indeed, be produced under specified conditions.

Again, I do not have time to develop another part of this story. Because even if Utts and her colleagues are correct and we were to find that we could reproduce the findings under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome — the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means. But an infinite variety of normal possibilities exist and it is not clear than one can control for all of them in a single experiment. You need a positive theory to guide you as to what needs to be controlled, and what can be ignored. Parapsychologists have not come close to this as yet.
Ray Hyman
Ray Hyman is professor emeritus of psychology, University of Oregon.

David put it well.

Meta analysis has a large number of caveats in its use, should we discuss the perils of meta-analysis?

The main one being the methodology of each study put into the meta-analysis. If you have error potential and bias in the base studies then this just messes up the meta analysis.

Anyway. I am done with this distraction. I still fail to see that my posting a link to a critique of the work of a statistician who performs meta-analysis of parapsychology papers was ever an ad hominem attack.

 

[jaydeehess]

Gravity leprechauns: invisible, undetectable leprechauns that rush around the universe moving everything that exists in such a way as to be indistinguishable from Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity does not exist. It's all gravity leprechauns.

But gravity leprechauns don't exist. Do you see my point yet?

So while gravitons may exist, we should not confuse them with gravichauns.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Not to me!

I don't trust anything until I read the paper and then see replication.

Your statement is really silly on a sceptics forums and silly in general.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

And that is why replication and large scale studies are important. Replication is essential

Pons and Fleishman show the need for replication.

 

[Dinwar]

Not to me!

I don't trust anything until I read the paper and then see replication.

Your statement is really silly on a sceptics forums and silly in general.

Definitely.

As a scientist I am obliged to take COPIOUS notes of all activities. At bare minimum I need to keep field notes in a bound field book with numbered pages (there are a lot of other regulations as well, but I won't get into details). On some projects I am also obliged to maintain photo logs, email logs, phone logs, and other logs that document important activities.

My word IS NOT good enough. If I don't have documentation, it didn't happen, period.

In the peer-reviewed literature, it's even more strict. The evidence is there for everyone to see--and your methodology is required to be complete enough (either in the publication or in published suplimental information) that anyone with an understanding of the relevant field can, in theory, replicate it. In historical sciences there's a bit of leeway there, in as much as you can never replicate something precisely in those sciences, but you must provide sufficient detail that other researchers can perform investigations that can confirm your findings.

While scientists tend to be overly-trusting, the process is specifically and intentionally designed to NOT trust researchers. While it rarely happens, literally any scientist can replicate literally any experiment in their field of study and satisfy themselves that the report is accurate. (When it is done it's often informal--at GSA one year I went with a professor to collect some fossils at a fossil black smoker, to confirm that the fauna described existed. Nothing much came of it, just "Huh, they do exist. I'll have to remember that", and I got to see one of the cooler outcrops I've been at, but it illustrates the point.)

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.

While this is true, what most not involved with science don't get is that the peer review process is only the first review process. The second is slower, but more rigorous and DOES address data quality: specifically, other researchers examine the implications of the report, if they don't question the data outright. If things that should hold true given the report start to not hold true, people start to question the data. This is a SERIOUS issue in science--we're talking career-killing, even for tenured professors, even for folks at the peak of their fields (Richard Owen comes to mind)--so most people are hesitant to make accusations. That said, if the implications of the report simply aren't found to be true, the accusation is inevitable. It may take a while--it may take generations--but it will eventually happen, unless science itself shuts down.

All peer review means, fundamentally, is that the report is worth discussing. It's the discussion itself that will really determine the validity of the report.

 

[jt512]

David put it well.


Anyway. I am done with this distraction. I still fail to see that my posting a link to a critique of the work of a statistician who performs meta-analysis of parapsychology papers was ever an ad hominem attack.

I never said it was an ad hominem attack, but I'm glad you're finally done with the distraction.

 

[jt512]

So how did the ganzfeld researchers sort the match potentials to make sure that each picture is a set did not have multiple words across pictures that they matched.

This is huge methodological error , if say you have three pictures in a set of four that all match the word 'round', then you can not say that the results are valid. This totally blows the way that the ganzfeld claims to have 'hits'. To have good method, you would need to determine which match word are 'hits' for each picture and then cross reference the sets so that there were not two pictures that had the same 'match' word in each set.

What "words"? What are you talking about? You're criticizing a methodology you don't even understand. We can now add straw man arguments to the list of the mistakes that "skeptics" make when criticizing parapsychology.

...and a meta analysis requires they all be run the same way with the same methods and demographics, does it not?

It does not.

 

[Dinwar]

We can now add straw man arguments to the list of the mistakes that "skeptics" make when criticizing parapsychology.

Disagreement is not a straw man attack. Accusing someone of a straw man attack because of a disagreement is inherently dishonest.

 

[jaydeehess]

I never said it was an ad hominem attack, but I'm glad you're finally done with the distraction.

Oy Vey!

 

[jaydeehess]

Disagreement is not a straw man attack. Accusing someone of a straw man attack because of a disagreement is inherently dishonest.

He didn't say "attack"

 

[Dinwar]

He didn't say "attack"

He says potato, I say spud. "Straw man argument" and "straw man attack" are two names for the same thing, as I learned it. I didn't mean anything else by it; I just don't see any difference between the concepts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Definitely.

As a scientist I am obliged to take COPIOUS notes of all activities. At bare minimum I need to keep field notes in a bound field book with numbered pages (there are a lot of other regulations as well, but I won't get into details)..

I am NOT a scientist. However I did take undergrad physics AND our 2nd year lab notes HAD to be made in pen , only in our lab notebooks (no such thing as a personal computer anyway), all work, all calculations, including statistical evaluation of margins of error had to be done in the notebooks, AND anyone tearing a page out or obliterating any notation they had taken was severely reprimanded. Absolutely every observation you noted had to be on the pages. If you screwed up , you noted that and re-did the experiment. If extra lab time was needed they were extremely accommodating. Absolutely no hint of fudging would be allowed.

 

[jaydeehess]

He says potato, I say spud. "Straw man argument" and "straw man attack" are two names for the same thing, as I learned it. I didn't mean anything else by it; I just don't see any difference between the concepts.

I made an ad hominem,,,, something,,,, wasn't an attack though.

Your ad hominem argument is about on par for quality with the others in the last few pages.

 

[jt512]

Disagreement is not a straw man attack. Accusing someone of a straw man attack because of a disagreement is inherently dishonest.

You're confused. Disagreement is not the issue. And you should be more careful about accusing people of being dishonest. You're usually wrong about it.

 

[jt512]

They certainly do in this case. We have two mutually exclusive working hypotheses. We can easily set up a test such that the results confirm one and disprove the other. Granted, the test may have to be on a larger scale than most SI tests, but the principle is identical.

Okay. Let's hear your idea. Describe the experiment to test the hypothesis being tested in the ganzfeld studies.

 

[beachnut]

It would have been a better analogy to be, "Is Bigfoot more Probable than ESP?"

Gee, math and stats are cool when they live in fantasyland, arguing over the probability of two fictional things. This is the "Science, ..." subforum?

 

[Craig B]

Has anyone made the point that if we are to accept ESP on the basis of anecdotal evidence, we are obliged to accept the existence of Advanced Alien Life on exactly the same basis? I once read a book called God Drives A Flying Saucer which was stuffed with anecdotal evidence of the most startling kind, establishing the existence both of alien life and of the Divinity too. Well, they're the same thing, actually.

 

[Nonpareil]

Has anyone made the point that if we are to accept ESP on the basis of anecdotal evidence, we are obliged to accept the existence of Advanced Alien Life on exactly the same basis? I once read a book called God Drives A Flying Saucer which was stuffed with anecdotal evidence of the most startling kind, establishing the existence both of alien life and of the Divinity too. Well, they're the same thing, actually.

We have attempted to make this point multiple times, adding in ghosts, Nessie, Bigfoot, and any number of other things.

It has yet to sink in.