PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[CFLarsen]

If something isn't observable one can't study it at all, nor even hypothesize about it.

Oh, my.

You can't be that ignorant.

 

[Beth]

Which is precisely why sociology is considered less of a science.


The context we are discussing is "philosophical search for truth," not "courtroom" or even "tenure."

I don't know where "tenure" came from, but people in a courtroom situation are usually engaged in a search for truth. I think my point stands.

 

[Beth]

If the reportage was that they had been detected by means of dangling crystals on a string, or gazing at cast tea-leaves, or someone mumbling vague stuff or drawing vague sketches, then the answer is "Most probably yes".

However if there is good solid scientific evidence, properly designed, referreed, and reasonably replicated by independent sources, then the answer is "Probably no".

Guess which methodology PEAR is closer to with their efforts at science...

I think you confirm David's point - what is considered 'paranormal' is very subjective. Attempts at objective definitions only seem to lead to the inclusion of things as paranormal that most people would not consider being in that category.

 

[Garrette]

I don't know where "tenure" came from, but people in a courtroom situation are usually engaged in a search for truth. I think my point stands.

I used to think so, too, but I have come to realize otherwise.

The courts (and legal system in general) are a means of determining legality, with demonstrable truth as sometimes-tool of that. Legality and truth are not synonymous.

 

[Beth]

Do you understand the problem with measuring a phenomona which is defined to be less than random? If psi can be smaller than random effects, and yet still exist, then what is the definition of non-existance?

How do you define what is considered 'less than random'? For most purposes, non-random is set at a probability level of less than 5%.

It's difficult to determine whether small effects exist, but it's not impossible. It requires a large number of precise measurements. The distributions of the measurements of the effect are then compared to the distribution of measurements from controls or a theorized chance distribution and a statistical test is done.

For very small effects, such as was being theorized here, it's quite possible that the effect would simply be part of the overall chaos of day-to-day operations and thus neither suspected nor tested for by the Casino operators.

 

[Beth]

I used to think so, too, but I have come to realize otherwise.

The courts (and legal system in general) are a means of determining legality, with demonstrable truth as sometimes-tool of that. Legality and truth are not synonymous.

You're right about the legal system, but I think my point still stands. Standards of evidence vary with the context.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know where "tenure" came from, but people in a courtroom situation are usually engaged in a search for truth.

Ehhh...no.

A legal court has nothing to do with searching for truth. The only function of a legal court is to determine, based on the law, what is legally "true". "Truth" makes no sense in a legal setting. It is better to call it "legally valid". E.g., a law legalizing abortion does not make abortion true. It just makes it legal.

If the law says that the Earth is flat, does that mean that a legal ruling means that the Earth in fact is flat? Of course not. But in a legal sense, it is.

Bad form, but remember the movie "A Few Good Men"? Remember the exchange between Kaffee and Dawson?

Kaffee: You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove!

That's exactly right: It doesn't matter if the two soldiers were innocent or not, all that mattered is what Kaffee could prove legally.

There is no doubt that O.J. Simpson killed his wife and her friend. But, in a legal sense, he didn't. Yet - and this underlines the point I am making - he was also found liable and responsible for their deaths.

How can this be? He is innocent of their deaths, but he is also liable for their deaths?

Law does not determine truth. Law is not searching for truth. Law is searching for what is legal, and what is not.

 

[Garrette]

You're right about the legal system, but I think my point still stands. Standards of evidence vary with the context.

I'll grant this, but it is not as lax or permissive as davidsmith and you are implying.

If you want something scientifically accepted, then present scientifically valid evidence.

The standard for scientifically demonstrating what PEAR wants to demonstrate is no higher than that for demonstrating that the speed of light is constant.

 

[steenkh]

For very small effects, such as was being theorized here, it's quite possible that the effect would simply be part of the overall chaos of day-to-day operations and thus neither suspected nor tested for by the Casino operators.

The idea of very small effects seem to be much better in correspondance with can be observed (i.e. nothing). But if the effects are so small, how come such a large part of the population believe they exist? With such small observable effects, it is surprising that anybody should ever have suspected that they exist!

In fact, the average person who believes in remote viewing and psi, believes that the effect is quite large, and nowhere close to the overall chaos of day-to-day operations. It seems to me that this type of defense of the PEAR results could end up hypothesising something that has nothing to do with what people know and love as "psi".

 

[T'ai Chi]

...
demonstrate is no higher than that for demonstrating that the speed of light is constant.

(there's been studies done hinting that it might not be)

 

[Beth]

The idea of very small effects seem to be much better in correspondance with can be observed (i.e. nothing). But if the effects are so small, how come such a large part of the population believe they exist? With such small observable effects, it is surprising that anybody should ever have suspected that they exist!

In fact, the average person who believes in remote viewing and psi, believes that the effect is quite large, and nowhere close to the overall chaos of day-to-day operations. It seems to me that this type of defense of the PEAR results could end up hypothesising something that has nothing to do with what people know and love as "psi".

This is a valid point in support of the non-existance of psi. Testing seems always to end up chasing smaller and smaller effects.

 

[Beth]

I'll grant this, but it is not as lax or permissive as davidsmith and you are implying.

If you want something scientifically accepted, then present scientifically valid evidence.

The standard for scientifically demonstrating what PEAR wants to demonstrate is no higher than that for demonstrating that the speed of light is constant.

As I recall (too much thread to try to reread) was that what is considered 'paranormal' is subjective. An argument was advanced that if the standards of evidence change, it's paranormal. My point was that standards of evidence change all the time, depending on context. It's not a non-subjective approach to defining the paranormal.

Although, on futher thought, I may have been wrong. Perhaps one way of defining the paranormal would be as something that requires solid repeatable evidence with a p-value of less than 0.001 due to random chance.

 

[Garrette]

(there's been studies done hinting that it might not be)

Yup. And when the hints become scientifically acceptable due to the level of evidence presented, then the inconstancy of lightspeed will be scientifically accepted.

Pretty cool how that works, dontcha think?

 

[Garrette]

As I recall (too much thread to try to reread) was that what is considered 'paranormal' is subjective. An argument was advanced that if the standards of evidence change, it's paranormal. My point was that standards of evidence change all the time, depending on context. It's not a non-subjective approach to defining the paranormal.

If that's the issue, then I'll bow out of the discussion. It's seems to me to be either a debate about nothing or a debate about what constitutes pornography.

But none of that changes that the evidence presented for those things normally considered paranormal (e.g., remote viewing, psi, mediumship) is lacking.

Although, on futher thought, I may have been wrong. Perhaps one way of defining the paranormal would be as something that requires solid repeatable evidence with a p-value of less than 0.001 due to random chance.

Being only a self-educated layman when it comes to statistics, I'll bow out of this part, too, though I think it is not quite as stark as that.

 

[CFLarsen]

(there's been studies done hinting that it might not be)

Do you think this means that the speed of light is not constant?

Yes or no.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you think this means that the speed of light is not constant?

Yes or no.

Well I have heard of some models of the early universe having diffent values for the speed of light, but that might not be needed with an enflationary universe. Never heard of any experiments showing variance in c(note that the speed of light can be changed if it is in a material)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yup. And when the hints become scientifically acceptable due to the level of evidence presented, then the inconstancy of lightspeed will be scientifically accepted.

Sure, so you admit more studies need to be done. Same with psi, eh?

 

[Garrette]

Sure, so you admit more studies need to be done. Same with psi, eh?

Makes no never mind to me about the light thing. I have no objection to finding out more about any subject.

But there's a fundamental difference you're glossing over (and this is assuming you're correct that some experiments have "hinted" about an inconstant light speed--I've no idea, but I'm taking you at your word):

If there are experiments showing an inconstant lightspeed, then what we have is exactly that: relatively recent experimental results that will be studied and either discarded or adopted based on evidence.

What we have with psi is exactly the opposite: no experimental results that hint at anything beyond a willingness to believe despite at least a century and a half of supposedly scientific investigation.

Tell me, Tai: Exactly what experiments into psi are you undertaking?

 

[T'ai Chi]

What we have with psi is exactly the opposite: no experimental results that hint at anything beyond a willingness to believe despite at least a century and a half of supposedly scientific investigation.

There's RNG studies, Ganzfeld, and some other suggestive preliminary possible results.

Tell me, Tai: Exactly what experiments into psi are you undertaking?

Why do you believe I personally have to undertake any psi experiments?

 

[Yahzi]

You're right about the legal system, but I think my point still stands. Standards of evidence vary with the context.

The standard of evidence for determining what is real does not change.

This standard is the one you employ when searching for your car keys. Applying any other standard to a scientific question is hypocritical.