PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[Beth]

I asked -
Why can't we (the royal we) see the copious, obvious and compelling evidence for remote viewing?



You find the evidence supporting remote viewing sufficient for you to believe that it is 'very likely'.

Yet most do not take this view.

As I pointed out above, I'm not sure this is true.

I propose that this is because there is no compelling evidence for it.
You propose that it is more a question of how compelling the evidence is.

You have pointed us at a few studies that appear (to me) to be far from compelling. It is possible that you are referring to some other unsighted studies, but I will assume for now that you are not (because surely they would be well known in the public domain otherwise).

Can you explain why the evidence is compelling to you?

And how does this weigh up in the face of the huge body of evidence that indicates that remote viewing is not real?

Sorry to labour the point but there seems to be some cognitive disssonance here.

Not necessarily.

Even if two people have examined the same evidence, they may not come to the same conclusion. They bring different backgrounds to evidence. One might find a set of statistics compelling, another may shrug and quote something about liars and statistics. Still another might shrug and and mutter something about how they know what they've seen.

Anecdotal evidence may not be compelling to anyone but the person involved, but that person can find it quite compelling. After all, they KNOW they aren't lying.

The upshot of is that everybody reaches their own conclusions based partially on their own experiences and partially relying on the conclusions of others. When we read scientific papers, we are relying on others to present their evidence honestly and fairly - an assumption that isn't always true. Then, even taking the evidence as valid, we may or may not agree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

 

[Flange Desire]

As I pointed out above, I'm not sure this is true.

I am sure it is true, and that is why I continue to labour the point with David.
I haven't got any hard stats at hand, but I'm pretty certain that a poll of 'Is remote viewing likely?' would reveal that the majority reject it.

Not necessarily.

Even if two people have examined the same evidence, they may not come to the same conclusion. They bring different backgrounds to evidence. One might find a set of statistics compelling, another may shrug and quote something about liars and statistics. Still another might shrug and and mutter something about how they know what they've seen.

Anecdotal evidence may not be compelling to anyone but the person involved, but that person can find it quite compelling. After all, they KNOW they aren't lying.

The upshot of is that everybody reaches their own conclusions based partially on their own experiences and partially relying on the conclusions of others. When we read scientific papers, we are relying on others to present their evidence honestly and fairly - an assumption that isn't always true. Then, even taking the evidence as valid, we may or may not agree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

I agree that one persons compelling evidence is another persons belly laugh.
I also think that the more far fetched a claim is, the more compelling the evidence needs to be before one should favour it.
I really want David to explain why the evidence presented so far in this thread is considered compelling to him, in the face of the huge body of evidence that indicates that remote viewing is not real.
Seems to me to be a reasonable question, and I await him in suspenders.

 

[davidsmith73]

It would be better and more productive if you started debating honestly.

Or alternatively, if you started providing counter arguments.

Is math science?

No. Its a part of science.

I'm speaking figuratively. There has to be done so much to the data, before they can squeeze anything out of it.

So you were refering to PEAR masaging the data, not me? Thats ok then. There are various sound arguments about the methodological problems of the PEAR work presented in the Hansen paper.

Because remote viewing is paranormal. It's that simple.

So how do we know remote viewing is unexplainable by science?

Take how you remote view: You don't remote view Zener cards and get an objective result. You remote view this way:

"I see a large object.....it's tall...thin....a tree, maybe a pole...there's water nearby..."

How is finding a positive result not subjective?

You are confused. You have described the subjective impressions of the remote viewer. This has nothing to do with subjective interpretations of what is paranormal and what is not.

But you have reserved the right to dismiss any term, if you deem it "meaningless".

And so can you. I doubt there will be many more, but "paranormal" is certainly one of them.

Strangely enough, you will do this the moment you are in trouble.

I'm not in trouble thanks. I'm sticking around with this because I feel I'm getting somewhere with you.

If I don't accept your explanation, then what?

Then we go our separate ways. Differences of opinion happen. Get over it. However, I'm still waiting to see what kind of counter-argument you have.

But that's not what weak atheists do, either implicit or explicit ones:

If you are an implicit atheist, you haven't consciously rejected theistic beliefs - ergo, you have to have accepted the definition of god.

A direct quote from the wikipedia site:

"Some weak atheists haven't thought about the matter at all (implicit atheists)."

Perhaps it is you who should be doing the learning

If you are an explicit atheist, you consciously reject the belief in deities - ergo, you have to have accepted the definition of god, in order to reject it.

If you consciously reject the belief in gods, you can also do that by consciously accepting the definition of god as meaningless.

The onus is not on me. Have you done a modicum of studying Dawkins on your own after I brought him up?

Yes. Dawkins regards various definitions of god as at least arguable against, so he must think them coherent to some degree as to evaluate against evidence, therefore he's a strong athiest as defined on that wikipedia site IMO.

And that makes you think I will suppress evidence?

No. I never said anything about suppressing evidence. I said there would be much flapping about

You misunderstand: Two psychics don't get twice the effect. It's a question of accumulated people with psychic abilities, not a question of accumulated psychic abilities.

If one psychic gambles, he will win 0.1% more than the casino counts on. So, he gambles a lot, and walks away with $1000.

With me so far?

Now, 1000 psychics gamble. How much money will the casino lose?

0.1% of the profits gained from these psychic gamblers. Even if all gamblers were psychic (and assuming a 0.1% effect), I doubt this is enough to make a casino go bust.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you were refering to PEAR masaging the data, not me? Thats ok then. There are various sound arguments about the methodological problems of the PEAR work presented in the Hansen paper.

They have garbage data and garbage methods. And yet, you believe that there is evidence.

So how do we know remote viewing is unexplainable by science?

What do you mean, "how"? It cannot be explained by science. We don't know what makes remote viewing work. If you think otherwise, I am most anxious to hear.

You are confused. You have described the subjective impressions of the remote viewer. This has nothing to do with subjective interpretations of what is paranormal and what is not.

You asked "What meaning does it serve this debate to label remote viewing as "paranormal"?"

I explained that remote viewing is subjective. Ergo, according to you, that can't make it scientific.

And so can you. I doubt there will be many more, but "paranormal" is certainly one of them.

Sure, I can, but I won't. I am not an intellectual coward.

I'm not in trouble thanks. I'm sticking around with this because I feel I'm getting somewhere with you.

And where is that?

Then we go our separate ways. Differences of opinion happen. Get over it. However, I'm still waiting to see what kind of counter-argument you have.

A very typical believer argument. I've seen it happen again and again: First, believers point to the evidence. Then, when the evidence doesn't hold water, the believer chalks it up to difference of opinion.

A direct quote from the wikipedia site:

"Some weak atheists haven't thought about the matter at all (implicit atheists)."

Perhaps it is you who should be doing the learning

Rubbish. If they haven't thought about it at all, how can they reject the definition of God? How can they find it meaningless?

If you consciously reject the belief in gods, you can also do that by consciously accepting the definition of god as meaningless.

But that's not what they do, David. They just don't believe in God.

Yes. Dawkins regards various definitions of god as at least arguable against, so he must think them coherent to some degree as to evaluate against evidence, therefore he's a strong athiest as defined on that wikipedia site IMO.

If he thinks the definitions of god are arguable, then he doesn't reject them as meaningless.

No. I never said anything about suppressing evidence. I said there would be much flapping about

You know nothing of what there would be on SkepticReport.

0.1% of the profits gained from these psychic gamblers. Even if all gamblers were psychic (and assuming a 0.1% effect), I doubt this is enough to make a casino go bust.

No, no, no, no. Each psychic gambler walks away with more money than he came with.

Read Yahzi's post #173 about casinos. 0.1% means millions of dollars:
Total revenue for Clark County 2005: $9,709,408,000. That's hundreds of millions of dollars over the years that has simply....vanished.

And you want us to believe nobody has noticed?

 

[Garrette]

As I pointed out above, I'm not sure this is true.

I tend to agree with you, but perhaps in a different fashion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that you think most people believe there is compelling evidence because you yourself believe that the evidence is, in fact, compelling.

I, on the other hand, think most people believe the evidence is compelling because most people (a) Have a predisposition toward believing in such things and so seek reinforcement of such beliefs, and/or (b) Have not taken the time to evaluate the evidence thoroughly and impartially.

Even if two people have examined the same evidence, they may not come to the same conclusion.

True. This does not mean the conclusions are equally valid.

They bring different backgrounds to evidence.

Which is why we try to apply a system which works to wee out bias.

One might find a set of statistics compelling,

One hopes it is found compelling only after informed and impartial scrutiny by more than one qualified expert.

another may shrug and quote something about liars and statistics.

Liars should be guarded against in all endeavors, particularly paranormal research given its history.

Please note that this position is not incompatible with the first.

Still another might shrug and and mutter something about how they know what they've seen.

I refer you to my letter (a) in the second paragraph below the first quotation of you.

Anecdotal evidence may not be compelling to anyone but the person involved, but that person can find it quite compelling. After all, they KNOW they aren't lying.

Which is, in my opinion and experience, one of the largest problems with belief in the paranormal. People equate sincerity with knowledge.

I was a very very strong believer myself and I never lied about my experiences or what I saw. I had and still have many friends and family members who are strong believers and whom I do not suspect of lying.

I simply no longer accept an argument from ignorance.

The upshot of is that everybody reaches their own conclusions based partially on their own experiences and partially relying on the conclusions of others.

True. And there is no perfect system, but the scientific method, fully and ruthlessly applied, comes closer than any other to overcoming the biases and errors built in to the system of assuming equal validity of everyone’s conclusions.

When we read scientific papers, we are relying on others to present their evidence honestly and fairly - an assumption that isn't always true.

Which is why there is peer review. It works quite well if not absolutely perfectly. PEAR has failed in that, no?

Then, even taking the evidence as valid, we may or may not agree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence.

And your agreement may or may not be valid.

Tell me, Beth, do you think that anyone can ever be wrong about anything? I am not asking this question mockingly; I am sincere in asking it.

If you do think so, then by what criteria do you judge their conclusions?

 

[Beth]

I tend to agree with you, but perhaps in a different fashion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that you think most people believe there is compelling evidence because you yourself believe that the evidence is, in fact, compelling.

You're wrong. I think that because of an article I read in my local paper last Sunday reporting results of a recent survey of Americans regarding such beliefs. I can't recall the exact numbers, but it was a very sizeable proportion of the population. They didn't reference remote viewing by that name, but rather discussed telepathy, ESP, etc.

This does not mean the conclusions are equally valid.

True. I'm going to skip most of your post because I'm pressed for time today. Sorry.

Tell me, Beth, do you think that anyone can ever be wrong about anything? I am not asking this question mockingly; I am sincere in asking it.

If you do think so, then by what criteria do you judge their conclusions?

Yes, people can certainly be wrong about many things. One reason I originally liked math so well was because of the certainty that mathematics can bring to things. Math has definitive right and wrong answers, more so than any other area.

By what criteria do I judge their conclusions? I'm afraid that's not a simple question and I cannot formulate a brief answer. Most, if not all, of what you have said above applies, but I would also include the necessity of well-understood definitions - an aspect of the "paranormal" that is, as David has pointed out repeatedly to Claus, is severely lacking.

 

[Ersby]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that you think most people believe there is compelling evidence because you yourself believe that the evidence is, in fact, compelling.

I'll be honest, I was surprised when I read this, since I didn't get this impression at all. Are you referring to something Beth said on another thread? Reading this thread, I don't see how you came to this conclusion.

I think a lot of this thread is simply people reading what they want to read and responding to that.

Poor show, chaps.

 

[Garrette]

You're wrong.

I apologize. I've been wrong before and undoubtedly will be wrong again.

I think that because of an article I read in my local paper last Sunday reporting results of a recent survey of Americans regarding such beliefs. I can't recall the exact numbers, but it was a very sizeable proportion of the population. They didn't reference remote viewing by that name, but rather discussed telepathy, ESP, etc.

Fair enough.

True. I'm going to skip most of your post because I'm pressed for time today. Sorry.

Not a problem. My schedule keeps me from answering posts I want to for days or weeks at a time. By which time, of course, the answering is sort of moot.

Yes, people can certainly be wrong about many things. One reason I originally liked math so well was because of the certainty that mathematics can bring to things. Math has definitive right and wrong answers, more so than any other area.

It may be the only area with definitive answers. But I'm neither a mathematician nor a scientist.

By what criteria do I judge their conclusions? I'm afraid that's not a simple question

Yep. I knew that when I asked.

and I cannot formulate a brief answer. Most, if not all, of what you have said above applies, but I would also include the necessity of well-understood definitions - an aspect of the "paranormal" that is, as David has pointed out repeatedly to Claus, is severely lacking.

It's possible I have seriously misinterpreted your previous post.

 

[Garrette]

I'll be honest, I was surprised when I read this, since I didn't get this impression at all. Are you referring to something Beth said on another thread? Reading this thread, I don't see how you came to this conclusion.

Specifically to what I quoted. Generally to my spotty memory of her posting record.

I like Beth and find her generally sincere and quite capable of holding an intelligent conversation. I also remember (perhaps incorrectly) that I have found her positions ultimately unsustainable.

I think a lot of this thread is simply people reading what they want to read and responding to that.

Quite common on every forum. Perhaps less so at JREF, but it's not rare.

Poor show, chaps.

If directed at me, I quietly object. I don't think I attacked Beth, and I admitted, as I usually do, that my impression could be wrong.

Which is not to say that I haven't stepped over the line in the past. I have. I just don't think this is one of those times.

 

[Ersby]

If directed at me, I quietly object.

Not directed to you at all. Apologies for any confusion. The first paragraph of my post was quite seperate from the follwing two.

 

[Cuddles]

A direct quote from the wikipedia site:

"Some weak atheists haven't thought about the matter at all (implicit atheists)."

Perhaps it is you who should be doing the learning

Do you consider wikipedia a reliable source of education?

If you consciously reject the belief in gods, you can also do that by consciously accepting the definition of god as meaningless.

No you can't. God is not a meaningless concept. I say god is a big man with a beard sitting just above the dome that keeps the sky from floating off who occaisionally throws thunderbolts at people for fun. This idea has meaning. It is wrong, but it still has meaning. The thousands of other definitions of god also have meaning, even if you believe that they are all wrong.

The same is true for the paranormal. It basically means something that cannot be explained scientifically, or more accurately a measureable effect that cannot be explained by current scientific theories, but should be. Before relativity was invented, making two clocks run at different speeds would not have been considered paranormal because there was no theory that explained the passage of time. At the moment, remote viewing, telepathy, etc. cannot be explained by current scientific theories, but since we think we understand the four basic forces at this level they should be. Therefore they are paranormal. If they are shown to exist and are explained, even if it means throwing out most accepted science, they will no longer be considered paranormal. Clearly this is a meaningful definition. Claiming otherwise is just ignoring reality.

 

[davidsmith73]

The odds you describe as heavily stacked in the favour of the casinos are regulated by law. The casinos are legally permitted to rake a certain amount, and no more.

Now ask yourself: if the daily rake comes up short a few percent, do the people who run the casinos shrug it off as unimportant?

Or do they immediately suspect cheating, and investigate?

Lets first remind ourselves what we have assumed in this part of the discussion. We have assumed that there is a weak PK/ESP effect that is present for all gamblers at all times they are gambling. I suggested it to be an effect that increases the payout percentage of slot machines by 0.5%. This fugure was off the top of my head. I used it to illustrate the point that the effect is probably relatively small compared to the percentage of profits the casino makes out of the money a gambler puts down. I don't know what the real figure might be (presuming a real effect is present). However, I'll continue my argument assuming a 0.5% increase.

So, to answer your first question, the short answer is very probably not. However, if such a PK/ESP effect were present, we might also argue that it has always been present since the start of the casinos franchise. So the casino's might have taken this discrepancy into account from the start.

To answer the second question, I expect they always suspect cheating when their takings deviate from what they predict. But they might already expect and have been observing this small discrepancy for years and years, so its already been taken into account in their prediction. If they have observed it, how would they know it is not down to cheating? In other words, they might just accept that a small percentage of cheating goes on that they don't know about and can't do anything about. Just a thought.

One more question: has any casino anywhere, ever, at any time, made it a policy that self-proclaimed psychics are not allowed to play?

I don't know, but probably not. If casino managers do know something about an unexplained discrepancy in their takings that they know is not down to cheating then I guess it would be unwise to advertise the fact that PK/ESP may help the prospective gambler. Loss of profits for the casino if the ability is controllable and enhancable.

Las Vegas has spent 50 billion dollars over 50 years to test 50 million people for psychic powers. And they have come up with exactly the statistical payout physics predicts. If anybody is in a position to detect psychic powers, it is the people who have to pay. There are no telekentics affecting the roulette wheels or slot machines; no precogs guessing the kino boards or black-jack shoe; no telepaths reading other people's cards at poker.

Have you seen the daily observed vs predicted percentage payouts for the various games in casinos?

Do you have an online reference to it?

Or are you just guessing that this is the case?

I would have expected that casino's are pretty guarded against letting people see this kind of information.

The evidence for psi evaporates the instance you actually look at any real-world endeavor.

But there seems to be no data available. Or is there?

You have looked at Las Vegas, the greatest, longest-running experiment in psi ever dreamed of, and simply ignored it because it did not produce the answers you wanted.

Neither side of this argument have really looked at this long-running experiment yet. We are just making an initial assumption and doing a thought experiment. I really dont think that a small percetage as 0.5% increase in the predicted payout percentage would be enough to make Las Vegas go bust. To say it would means that these businesses operate on the knife edge of profitability. This is clearly not true. For example, large swings in their profits occur all the time due to things like slumps in travel. This source says they were down by one third in 2002. Yet Las Vegas is still there. Go figure!

http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2002/01/28/daily54.html

I would really interested to see some real data from casino's. The most valuble information would be observed vs predicted payout percentages for slot machines, since these would be expected to show the least amount of difference if no PK/ESP existed.

 

[Garrette]

Not directed to you at all. Apologies for any confusion.

Too late for apologies, mate. I am offended and pouting. Happy about it, too...

 

[Ersby]

Too late for apologies, mate. I am offended and pouting. Happy about it, too...

I'm only apologising about confusion. Pouting and offended aren't covered.

Plus, my dad's bigger than yours.

 

[davidsmith73]

Unfortunately, you can't draw that conclusion from the analysis done by PEAR. They are saying, and David is trying to reinforce this, that because they got "results" at the start, and their reduction analysis still showed "results" on the way through, that the analysis was therefore valid. Even if the data was not.

I am not saying their basic analysis technique is without its problems. I am just disagreeing with the hypothesis that their drop in effect size was to do with their method of analysis, which was a major claim of the article from SkepticReport. I can argue this because the same analysis was used on the binary-treated distributive data as the original binary data. The former got no results but the later got positive results. The same argument applies for the FIDO data.

 

[davidsmith73]

Unfortunately, you can't draw that conclusion from the analysis done by PEAR. They are saying, and David is trying to reinforce this, that because they got "results" at the start, and their reduction analysis still showed "results" on the way through, that the analysis was therefore valid. Even if the data was not.

I am not saying their basic analysis technique is without its problems. I am just disagreeing with the hypothesis that their drop in effect size was to do with their method of analysis, which was a major claim of the article from SkepticReport. I can argue this because the same analysis was used on the binary-treated distributive data as the original binary data. The former got no results but the later got positive results. The same argument applies for the FIDO data.

 

[davidsmith73]

They have garbage data and garbage methods. And yet, you believe that there is evidence.

I have stated several times that I do not regard the PEAR data as evidence of remote viewing.

What do you mean, "how"? It cannot be explained by science. We don't know what makes remote viewing work. If you think otherwise, I am most anxious to hear.

So you think "paranormal" means "not yet explained by science rather than "unexplainable by science" ?

If so, then I think this is a meaningful definition. However, it forces us to include a host of other phenomena that are not popularly regarded as parnormal. For example, take this list:

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600

According to your new definition, all these phenomena are "paranormal".

Would you regard them all as paranormal? If not, why not?

We can take your definition further. All phenomena observed in the history of human observation were parnormal before they were scientifically explained. Yet a relatively miniscule number have been popularly labelled as such as far as I know.

Why do you think this is?

If the definition of the word "paranormal" is "not yet sceintifically explained" then I certainly accept it as meaningfull. However, I prefer to use the term "scientifically unexplained" in discussion. Its not confusing that way.

You asked "What meaning does it serve this debate to label remote viewing as "paranormal"?"

I explained that remote viewing is subjective. Ergo, according to you, that can't make it scientific.

The conscious impressions of the remote viewers are subjective. The experimental methods and results used to study remote viewing are not.

A very typical believer argument. I've seen it happen again and again: First, believers point to the evidence. Then, when the evidence doesn't hold water, the believer chalks it up to difference of opinion.

Our difference of opinion lies in the definition and meaning of the term "paranormal" and the interpretation of what PEAR reported as their results.

Rubbish. If they haven't thought about it at all, how can they reject the definition of God?

They don't have to reject it. They just have to not have thought about it. Thats why babies can be regarded as implicit weak atheists, according to the definitions on wikipedia.

How can they find it meaningless?

Weak implicit atheists don't. Weak atheists who are not implicit ones can.

But that's not what they do, David. They just don't believe in God.

According to wikipedia definitions, its possible for a weak atheist to regard various definitions of god as meaningless, thus not believe in god. How can this not be?

If he thinks the definitions of god are arguable, then he doesn't reject them as meaningless.

So he would be a strong atheist would he not?

No, no, no, no. Each psychic gambler walks away with more money than he came with.

But that would mean the PK/ESP effect is large. We have assumed it is small. We have assumed that the casino makes a profit, but just a little less of a profit.

How much an effect on the payout percentage are you suggesting? (in terms of a percentage figure)

 

[Yahzi]

They bring different backgrounds to evidence. One might find a set of statistics compelling, another may shrug and quote something about liars and statistics.

I would have to say, they have different evidence. For instance, the knowledge that statistics can be used to lie is itself a peice of evidence.

Anyway, establishing the standard of evidence is actually quite easy. Simply change the topic. Whatever the topic, the rules of evidence are not supposed to change.

So if we present exactly the same kind of data for some other topic, will David suddenly object to the conclusions?

Help us out here, David. Tell us what theory or claim you reject, and why you reject it.

(This is precisely why the one rule in the New Age is that you are never allowed to say someone else is wrong. Thus, before attempting to disprove a claim to someone, you must first find out if they accept any disproof of any claim.)

 

[Beth]

I would have to say, they have different evidence. For instance, the knowledge that statistics can be used to lie is itself a peice of evidence.

Anyway, establishing the standard of evidence is actually quite easy. Simply change the topic. Whatever the topic, the rules of evidence are not supposed to change.

Er..no. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and that sort of thing. The standard of evidence does change depending on the context and the person making the judgement.


A bit of a retread, but I found a site I think is reliable with some data on what percentage of people hold various belief on psychic phenomena. http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/indicators/

For ESP (I think remote viewing falls into this category) the believers clearly outnumber the non-believers by a substantial margin, although there are enough who are not sure that the believers don't have an actual majority.

 

[Beth]

I like Beth and find her generally sincere and quite capable of holding an intelligent conversation.

Thank you. That's nice of your to say.

I also remember (perhaps incorrectly) that I have found her positions ultimately unsustainable.

Quite a fancy way to say we disagree.

Quite common on every forum. Perhaps less so at JREF, but it's not rare.

If directed at me, I quietly object. I don't think I attacked Beth, and I admitted, as I usually do, that my impression could be wrong.

Which is not to say that I haven't stepped over the line in the past. I have. I just don't think this is one of those times.

I didn't feel attacked, so you were fine.