A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[JMA]

What makes parapsychology different from all other science is that this can't happen. If a physicist spends decades looking for a new particle only to find it isn't there, they can move on to study different particles. If a parapsychologist spends decades looking for psi and finds it isn't there, they are out of a job and have no relevant qualifications or research to find a new one. With all other sciences, theories might be right or wrong, but the field will always be there. With parapsychology, if the theories are wrong then there is no field.

I think someone with a PhD in parapsychology could move on doing research about anomalous psychology without too much trouble. Susan Blackmore did it, after all (well, she moved on the field of consciousness). But I'm maybe wrong about this...

 

[davidsmith73]

David.

I don't want to criticise Daryl Bem. He's a nice guy, I've met him and chatted to him about the area.

But here is the voice of experience and learning (things fundamental to science). I have first hand experience of Professor Bem making a mistake with analysis. I gave him some data of mine to examine and he pulled out a number of significant findings. However I went back into my data and noticed some errors in his calculations. Correcting for those errors eliminated the results.

Are you referring to your 2005 PH studies where its stated in the abstract that he suggested your results could be evidence of precognitive aversion?

I would find it interesting to see your respective calculations. But I understand your reluctance to discuss technical aspects of this research that you no longer feel is worthy of much discusssion.

I am also wondering whether the example of Dean Radin misrepresenting results you mentioned has anything to do with his interpretation of your time-reversed stroop task experiments? I remember reading an article of his some time ago that suggested your experiments were successful or something. I can't find it on the net anymore. Perhaps you could include it in your blog?

If I had trusted and not checked, the story might be different.

Absolutely. I think its essential in psi research that every last detail is included in methods sections so that these kinds of things can be easily assessed without thinking "I wonder how he calculated such and such".

Perhaps journal editors should note which authors are theists and which are atheists. That might eliminate a need to read rubbish, whilst put pressure on people to consider their positions. Where else do we even start?

I don't see how this could be relevant. In fact I think that would be quite a bizzare suggestion. If a scientist believes in god, thats their business. We should be able to judge their methodology without judging their personal metaphysical beliefs. Even if such a suggestion were put into practice, what kind of scientific arguments could be raised against a sound experimental paper that happens to be authored by a theist?

 

[Rodney]

Are you suggesting that a belief in psi is only possible if you're a theist? Are you saying that psi must be the work of a higher intelligence and cannot possibly be a natural mechanical process?

Not necessarily, but I have yet to encounter even one atheist who is neutral about psi. Do you know of any?

 

[davidsmith73]

Realistically? No. We've had a look at the only "promising" studies and they barely show anything. The few negative studies that psp02ls mentioned are probably more than enough to negate the "effect".

But this is not good enough in science. In order for what you are saying to carry any weight, you have to do the maths. I'm not denying the possibility you may be right, but in order to prove what you are saying it seems to me that you would have to engage in the same meta-analytical process that you condemn in the first place. Otherwise its just an intuitive assessment.

Experience. And it's right there in the article you referenced - how many different ways did he split up the data on his charts?

I see your point. I suppose that if his findings are replicated in terms of the same individual difference variables, this would make what you are saying less likely.

But as a counter point, Bem's experiments follow in a series where he was able to replicate the same effect within the same individual difference variables, ie emotionally/erotically reactive. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't we expect to see different individual difference variables producing the positive results in each experimental series, by chance?

 

[Ersby]

Not necessarily, but I have yet to encounter even one atheist who is neutral about psi. Do you know of any?

*ahem* Davidsmith73 *ahem*

 

[Rodney]

*ahem* Davidsmith73 *ahem*

He strikes me as an agnostic and not an atheist, but he can set the record straight if I'm wrong.

 

[davidsmith73]

Almost my entire PhD is that kind of experiment David. Radin's been into time-reversed effects for ages. I thought the same as you once. Turned out I was wrong.

How do you account for the successful time-reversed effect experiments published/presented by others? Take the latest precognitive/presentiment experiments described in the 2006 PA convention. I know you think Dean Radin misrepresents his findings but do you think that applies to these experimenters too? Or do you think it probably bad stats or chance?

 

[davidsmith73]

He strikes me as an agnostic and not an atheist, but he can set the record straight if I'm wrong.

Thats quite perceptive of you. I'm still a little unsure about whether I would class myself as atheist or agnostic. I'm not really into the debate on the difference between them, but I usually go for atheist. I don't deny there is evidence for god because I don't understand what "god" is supposed to mean. The term doesn't occupy any place in my personal belief system as far as i know. Does that make me agnostic?

 

[fls]

But this is not good enough in science. In order for what you are saying to carry any weight, you have to do the maths. I'm not denying the possibility you may be right, but in order to prove what you are saying it seems to me that you would have to engage in the same meta-analytical process that you condemn in the first place. Otherwise its just an intuitive assessment.

The onus is not on me. I am not claiming anything that is at all amazing. I am simply pointing out that there is a plausible alternate explanation for the results in contradistinction to the highly implausible explanation put forward by the researchers.

The default position is the null hypothesis or skepticism or "that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish" (Hume). All I am asking is that parapsychology researchers hold themselves to that standard we use for conventional research.

I realize (as I stated in the part that you snipped) that it doesn't serve to prove the parapsychologists wrong to a believer. But that is not the scientific approach.

I see your point. I suppose that if his findings are replicated in terms of the same individual difference variables, this would make what you are saying less likely.

But as a counter point, Bem's experiments follow in a series where he was able to replicate the same effect within the same individual difference variables, ie emotionally/erotically reactive. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't we expect to see different individual difference variables producing the positive results in each experimental series, by chance?

We don't really know if the experiments followed in a series. The reported results were not consistent through the series. It does not rule out that the effect could be a measure of bias in the experimental design and equipment. Etc.

Linda

 

[psp02ls]

How do you account for the successful time-reversed effect experiments published/presented by others? Take the latest precognitive/presentiment experiments described in the 2006 PA convention. I know you think Dean Radin misrepresents his findings but do you think that applies to these experimenters too? Or do you think it probably bad stats or chance?

I don't think Radin misrepresents his findings. I KNOW!

You seem desperate to want to believe David. There is no single normal explanation for successful experiments in these areas but a VARIETY of different normal explanations. Fraud, bad stats, misrepresenting findings, technical issues etc.

I'm not going to contribute to this discussion anymore, if you're not going to listen to what I say.

I've given my position. That I worked hard and honestly to find out the truth.

Don't listen to me and waste your life researching the area. That's what Bem, Radin and the others have done and are doing.

 

[davidsmith73]

The onus is not on me. I am not claiming anything that is at all amazing. I am simply pointing out that there is a plausible alternate explanation for the results in contradistinction to the highly implausible explanation put forward by the researchers.

I don't understand this. You are stating that it wouldn't take many negative experiments to nullify the positive ones and then say the onus is not on you to prove this. Surely, the onus is on you to quantitatively demonstrate that what you are saying is plausible, just as the onus is on parapsychologists to prove their claim that the number of successful experiments is above chance. Like I said, I'm not denying that you may be right, but it seems like you have to enter into the kind of analysis you condemn in the first place, in order to prove what you are saying.

 

[davidsmith73]

I don't think Radin misrepresents his findings. I KNOW!

Its a bit hard for third parties to objectively evaluate what you are saying without seeing how this came about. Are you referring to any paper that we could perhaps have a look at?

You seem desperate to want to believe David. There is no single normal explanation for successful experiments in these areas but a VARIETY of different normal explanations. Fraud, bad stats, misrepresenting findings, technical issues etc.

You're right I do want to believe there is something to this research. It would be exciting if there were. But I have to check these things for myself. With all due respect, you are saying that certain researchers are using bad stats and misrepresenting results but if I can't look at the objective evidence for what you are saying, then how can I believe what you are saying?

But thanks for taking part in the discussion. Its been perhaps the most revealing thread I've been involved in.

 

[psp02ls]

But I have to check these things for myself. With all due respect, you are saying that certain researchers are using bad stats and misrepresenting results but if I can't look at the objective evidence for what you are saying, then how can I believe what you are saying?

Okay last point.

What you do, is you go back and read their stuff. You look at the sources they use. You read the sources. Then you replicate what people have done, taking into account any problems or concerns. That is what I did. But oops, you haven't done that, have you?

Read the conscious universe. Then read the papers that Radin used to write the conscious universe (oh wait, he used lots and you probably can't be bothered reading them all).

On my desk, in front of me, are a couple of hundred parapsychology papers.
Go and read and make your own mind up. But do not rely on one or two people for a belief in the PARANORMAL. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I say there is no paranormal. It is not an extraordinary claim, hence I don't need extraordinary proof. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And that really is enough.

 

[Merko]

Surely, the onus is on you to quantitatively demonstrate that what you are saying is plausible, just as the onus is on parapsychologists to prove their claim that the number of successful experiments is above chance.

There are many, many proven examples of scientists failing to apply correct statistics, making mistakes that bias a study, committing outright fraud, etc etc. There is *no* proven example of PSI. So if we have a certain PSI study that claims to show a PSI effect, there are two ways to explain it. Either the study is bad. We know that many studies are bad. There's nothing spectacular about another one. Or the PSI effect exists. Then the study breaks completely new ground and turns much of what we think we know upside down.

Surely the onus is on the PSI researcher, and on the PSI community in general, to show that it's not just another bad study, that it can be replicated by others, etc. It's not enough if someone 15 years ago did a somewhat similar study. They have to come up with a way to make a study that *consistently* produces positive results.

 

[Merko]

All scienctists work on things we know exist. If someone studies convection in the Sun, we might not know exactly how it works, or even if there is definately convection and not something else, but we know damn well that the Sun is there and that something is happening. Even scientists looking for hypothetical particles that quite possibly don't exist know that some particles exist and that new ones have been found in the past.

I don't think this has any relevance to what I wrote. I agree mostly, but not completely. Not all PSI effects necessarily rely on completely out-in-the-blue notions such as 'life forces', 'spirits', etc. Telepathy could be explained completely within known science if we discovered that we in fact have a little radio receiver and transmitter in our brains, we just don't normally know how to use it for some obscure (but perfectly naturalistic) reason. Extremely unlikely, yes, but we're still 'working with things we know to exist'.

Even when they don't find anything, or even prove themselves wrong, they have added a bit of knowledge to the world and can move on to new research in the field.

Sure. But let's take this hypothetical physicist who spends 20 years hunting for the xion particle. After 20 years he concludes that it doesn't exist. Do you really believe that he would do this, if he wasn't willing to bet that the xion really existed, at the start of his project? You think he'd spend 20 years trying to be the guy that showed that there's no xions? I don't think so. He wanted to find it, he was sure he'd find it - and he failed. Yes, he's still a very respectable scientist. But the truth is that he won't go down in history for this work - which he would have if he had found it.

What makes parapsychology different from all other science is that this can't happen. If a physicist spends decades looking for a new particle only to find it isn't there, they can move on to study different particles. If a parapsychologist spends decades looking for psi and finds it isn't there, they are out of a job and have no relevant qualifications or research to find a new one. With all other sciences, theories might be right or wrong, but the field will always be there. With parapsychology, if the theories are wrong then there is no field.

How do you know it can't happen? I perfectly agree it seems extremely unlikely, especially given all the research that has been done. But no, we can't *know* it. Otherwise I agree. They have no field, and moving to something more useful and productive is not impossible, but it means burning a few bridges. So there is an unhealthy motivation here to keep up a good face outwardly, despite the lack of any tangible results.

 

[davidsmith73]

There are many, many proven examples of scientists failing to apply correct statistics, making mistakes that bias a study, committing outright fraud, etc etc. There is *no* proven example of PSI. So if we have a certain PSI study that claims to show a PSI effect, there are two ways to explain it. Either the study is bad. We know that many studies are bad. There's nothing spectacular about another one. Or the PSI effect exists. Then the study breaks completely new ground and turns much of what we think we know upside down.

Surely the onus is on the PSI researcher, and on the PSI community in general, to show that it's not just another bad study, that it can be replicated by others, etc. It's not enough if someone 15 years ago did a somewhat similar study. They have to come up with a way to make a study that *consistently* produces positive results.

I agree. I was just saying that a critic who argues that meta-analysis is inappropriate must also engage in a meta-analysis if they are to prove that it would only take a certain number of negative experiments to nullify the positive ones. I could be wrong, in that some other valid kind of analysis could be done, but that's the way it seems to me.

 

[fls]

I don't understand this. You are stating that it wouldn't take many negative experiments to nullify the positive ones and then say the onus is not on you to prove this. Surely, the onus is on you to quantitatively demonstrate that what you are saying is plausible, just as the onus is on parapsychologists to prove their claim that the number of successful experiments is above chance. Like I said, I'm not denying that you may be right, but it seems like you have to enter into the kind of analysis you condemn in the first place, in order to prove what you are saying.

As I stated before, I am not trying to prove anything. I don't particularly care that you don't find it "plausible" that averaging in a few more studies may erase a difference of only 14 people.

It is unscientific for parapsychologists to make the claim in the first place, because it is up to the person making the claim to demonstrate that plausible alternate explanations have been ruled out. If the analysis hasn't been done, it means that the parapsychology claim is unsupported, not that the claim against is unsupported.

However, if I were making a formal criticism in a peer-reviewed journal, I would go ahead and make a quantitative analysis to bolster my point. It doesn't seem like it would be worth my while here, though.

Linda

 

[davidsmith73]

As I stated before, I am not trying to prove anything. I don't particularly care that you don't find it "plausible" that averaging in a few more studies may erase a difference of only 14 people.

It is unscientific for parapsychologists to make the claim in the first place, because it is up to the person making the claim to demonstrate that plausible alternate explanations have been ruled out. If the analysis hasn't been done, it means that the parapsychology claim is unsupported, not that the claim against is unsupported.

However, if I were making a formal criticism in a peer-reviewed journal, I would go ahead and make a quantitative analysis to bolster my point. It doesn't seem like it would be worth my while here, though.

Linda

I'm not suggesting you actually do that to satisfy my point of view. I'm just pointing out that in order to prove what you are saying you would have to do a meta-analysis, but you said that meta-anlyses are inappropriate for resolving this issue. Bit of a catch-22. Which is why I think Merko's opinion is the best option. Establishment of the reality of psi will only come when a robust, repeatable experiment is designed.

 

[Garrette]

Establishment of the reality of psi will only come when a robust, repeatable experiment is designed.

And that, given the long-time failure to produce such an experiment, the default position is not that skeptics remain open-minded to the possibility of psi but that psi is a chimera.

 

[latent aaaack]

I was aware of that explanation which is why empirically testable dream esp research is the only evidence that interests me but I haven't found any such studies on line. 52% of people believe dreams can foretell the future or reveal hidden truths and unlike the existence of God, it is one paranormal belief that should be testable and of interest to the public.

It's pretty normal actually. I experience coincidences all of the time. I'll give you a trivial one: I was recently up on a step ladder and hit a door into my head. I cursed atheism and said, 'cmon god, i'll believe in you if you're nicer to me'. I then stubbed my foot very hard.

You see we have lots of thoughts running through our heads (and we all probably dream every night). Is it surprising sometimes mental events occasionally tally with events going on in the external world? It's just chance. What would be strange is if this never happened!