A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[psp02ls]

Do you really think you're an expert on the subject with such limited experience?

And this is why I gave up parapsychology. It really is like hitting your head against a brick wall. I'm actually surprised by the number of believers frequenting Randi's site.

I've just reread my 'why I quit' article to see what exactly it's lacking. However it seems to me that I tell the story of my parapsychological career quite well. I was a passionate parapsychologist and a passionate scientist, but the science won out.

I've mentioned S. G. Soal briefly before, but really go and read about him. His research was long considered the best evidence for precognition. But today opinion is that Soal faked his data and according to Skepdic, Soal gets not one mention in 'The Conscious Universe'. That is dishonest!

And what did I find? A whole lot of nothing and a whole lot of wishful thinking.

My PhD was on evolution and precognition. I tried to breed a psychic beetle. But I was wrong and learnt from my mistakes! It took me a long time but one day I finally appreciated Darwin's theory of evolution for what it is. One of the most powerful scientific answers ever discovered. And most parapsychologists seemed quite oblivious to it. Is it coincidence that Susan Blackmore has also claimed that 'everything is pointless' as part of her own conclusions about the universe?

I think not. Argue and debate till the cows come home, but either psi is real or it isn't. Our species will not be here for very long and ultimately it doesn't matter. But I have considered the evidence and found it lacking. There are bigger fish to fry and more important answers to discover. What is time? Why did the universe start 12 billion years ago? Is there intelligent life elsewhere?

As I keep saying. Let's leave the kooks to Randi. If anyone actually ever wins the million dollar prize, then I might be interested!

 

[Merko]

I'm actually surprised by the number of believers frequenting Randi's site.

It surprises me too, but in a positive way. If only skeptics frequented this site, it would be so much less useful. Maybe it's the million dollars drawing them here?

 

[JMA]

Do you really think you're an expert on the subject with such limited experience?

Well, for me yes he's an expert on the subject. Without doubt.

I mean, don't be dishonest here. If you take any guy doing a PhD on any giving subject, you will consider him an expert on that subject. Why here are you not applying this obvious common sense? Just because he's saying something you don't like should be irrelevant.

I'm doing my PhD on the ufo phenomena, and there is always this annoying ufologists saying: "you have studied the ufo phenomena only 10 years, so you're still a newbie. Wait another 10 years (or more) and on your dead bead I can assure you that you'll be a ufo-believer. After all, you are a clever guy..." Same thing here. Pretty annoying.

I'm actually surprised by the number of believers frequenting Randi's site.

Don't forget those who read the forum but don't post on it. Sometimes, believers are more eager to writte they point of view on the forum that the skeptics, because they wan't to convince the others that they are right...

 

[Rodney]

Well, for me yes he's an expert on the subject. Without doubt.

I mean, don't be dishonest here. If you take any guy doing a PhD on any giving subject, you will consider him an expert on that subject. Why here are you not applying this obvious common sense? Just because he's saying something you don't like should be irrelevant.

So I take it, then, if a 26-year old Ph.D. candidate in physics announces that (s)he used to be a skeptic regarding the paranormal, but is now a believer, you will consider that person an expert physicist?

 

[Jeff Corey]

So I take it, then, if a 26-year old Ph.D. candidate in physics announces that (s)he used to be a skeptic regarding the paranormal, but is now a believer, you will consider that person an expert physicist?

That just makes no sense. The person in question studied parapsychology, not physics.

 

[Rodney]

That just makes no sense. The person in question studied parapsychology, not physics.

You're missing the point. JMA asserted: "If you take any guy doing a PhD on any giving subject, you will consider him an expert on that subject." So, if a 26-year Ph.D. candidate in parapsychology is an expert in parapsychology, then why isn't a 26-year Ph.D. candidate in physics an expert in physics?

 

[psp02ls]

So I take it, then, if a 26-year old Ph.D. candidate in physics announces that (s)he used to be a skeptic regarding the paranormal, but is now a believer, you will consider that person an expert physicist?

Well, searching the forums shows that Rodney is indeed a Radin loving believer.

For the record, I'm 28 (not that age is an issue, although if you can't even get these 'facts' correct there's no hope) and I'm sure I've read more parapsychology and thought about it more than you have, dear Rodney.

Expert or not. I have experience and expertise in parapsychology. Believe Radin and his 'account' if you want, but don't expect me to respect your ignorance! I'm not forcing you to read anything I write, nor do I expect you to agree.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The part that made no sense was"...used to be a skeptic regarding the paranormal, but is now a believer." That has nothing to do with it.
As for a Ph.D. candidate being an expert in their area of specialization, they better be, in order to defend their dissertation.

 

[JMA]

So I take it, then, if a 26-year old Ph.D. candidate in physics announces that (s)he used to be a skeptic regarding the paranormal, but is now a believer, you will consider that person an expert physicist?

Dear Rodney, you argument just make no sense to me.

We were talking about being an expert on a subject, and now you're talking about being a believer or a skeptic.

You're jumping from something to another.

Being an expert is having a certain amount of knowledge in the area (that's imply a certain amount of reading, thinking and researching in this area).

After that, believing or being a skeptic, it doesn't depend only on the amount of knowledge, but also of the prior belief (before starting university), the education during childhood, the personnality traits and so on...

For me, you can be an expert and be a believer. Bem or Radin are also expert for me (they have a certain amount of knowledge in the area of parapsychology). But they are wrong in their conclusion.

I hope, Dear Rodney, that this make my position clearer to you,

Skepticaly yours,

 

[Rodney]

Well, searching the forums shows that Rodney is indeed a Radin loving believer

I don't particularly love Radin, but I do respect what he's doing and I find the evidence for psi compelling. As this article notes -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology --

"When results of these studies are combined in meta-analyses, they return astronomically high results in favor of the existence of psi (or some unknown factor). This is so even when common statistical tools are used to rule out 'file drawer' cases which might occur when insignificant results are not reported. Other experiments aimed at detecting psi, especially those performed by experimenters and subjects who disbelieve in psi, have scored significantly below chance (this is called psi-missing). (Radin 1997:108-109) Despite the extremely positive results of psi experiments, however, parapsychology remains highly controversial, partially due to the lack of a theory which explains its results." (footnotes omitted)

For the record, I'm 28 (not that age is an issue, although if you can't even get these 'facts' correct there's no hope) and I'm sure I've read more parapsychology and thought about it more than you have, dear Rodney.

Sorry about getting your age wrong -- I thought the link I cited (stating that you are 26) was from earlier this year. But -- since you know very little about me -- I'm not quite sure how you arrive at the conclusion that you've read more parapsychology and thought about it more than I have.

Expert or not. I have experience and expertise in parapsychology.

Limited experience and expertise, in my opinion. My main point is that you changing your mind about parapsychology is not nearly as big of a deal as, say, Radin or Bem changing their minds. Whenever a well-known expert in a given discipline -- whether it's parapsychology, physics, or whatever -- changes his/her mind, that's a big deal. However, when someone that no one outside of the discipline has ever heard of changes his/her mind, that's not such a big deal.

Believe Radin and his 'account' if you want, but don't expect me to respect your ignorance! I'm not forcing you to read anything I write, nor do I expect you to agree.

So let's debate it. You can start by telling me what's wrong with the above Wikipedia analysis.

 

[luchog]

The method of meta-analysis is based on the flawed idea that all studies are done properly.

Not proper meta-analysis, no. An inherent part of the process is to check for methodological flaws and reporting bias.

 

[psp02ls]

Rodney.

What you believe is Radin or Bem's opinion. I have conducted a lot of parapsychology experiments. I have received quite a bit of funding and been employed twice in a paid parapsychology position. Thinking back on it, one of the main reasons for my perseverance with the field, was the work of Dean Radin, Daryl Bem and Dick Bierman. I've met and chatted to most of the big names in the area and read most of the important research studies. I've also worked with some top name celebrity psychics.

And my opinion from all of it now, is that people are deluding themselves. I've found a number of examples of Radin misrepresenting what people found. Go and look up his psi-timing research (and you'll find a number of papers arguing that his stats were just plain wrong).

This is why misrepresenting findings angers me so. The general public get their information from respectable scientists like Radin and Bem. But you are only getting an opinion about the research and you have to remember that other peoples' opinions might be different. Certainly I did not manage to replicate any paranormal effect, to my own satisfaction. And one of the big claims is that these effects are replicable.

Ignore my contribution and opinion if you like. I do not feel the need to justify my position and it is not my job to educate you. I pursued the goals honestly, ultimately because I wanted to know the truth. Are you arguing that this is wrong for a scientist? And I know that Radin kept out vital pieces from the conscious universe. When I gave my time-reversed interference talk at the Paris Parapsychological Association convention (a few years ago) a few big names came up to me and said that they agreed Radin had missed out details and should be updated.

So Rodney, believe what you want. I think I might retire to my blog. One reason I gave up parapsychology was because I didn't want to really expend so much thought on it!

*I'd like to add that I am not the sole author on any of my papers. I have shared authorship with 'real' academics, like Professor Chris French and Dr Matthew Smith. Chris French put his name to my paper which criticised Dean Radin. Do you dismiss his support so readily?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The neutrality of the body of this article is disputed.

When results of these studies are combined in meta-analyses, they return astronomically high results in favor of the existence of psi (or some unknown factor).

Just wanted to clarify that statement. I am impressed at the parenthetical remark, though.

~~ Paul

 

[Ersby]

Limited experience and expertise, in my opinion. My main point is that you changing your mind about parapsychology is not nearly as big of a deal as, say, Radin or Bem changing their minds. Whenever a well-known expert in a given discipline -- whether it's parapsychology, physics, or whatever -- changes his/her mind, that's a big deal. However, when someone that no one outside of the discipline has ever heard of changes his/her mind, that's not such a big deal.

Of course, because we know so little about you, we have no idea if your opinion is worth anything or not. At least, if we apply your standards to yourself. Do you have any experience in parapsychology?

Louie Savva chaired the 2005 PA convention, and this has been described in glowing terms as one of the best in recent years.

http://www.pflyceum.org/117.html

So it's clear that Savva is competent, and knows what he's doing. What are you basing your opinion on, by the way?

And as for a long-term parapsychologist who left parapsychology disillusioned with the methods and standards employed, how about Eric Dingwall?

 

[Ersby]

"When results of these studies are combined in meta-analyses, they return astronomically high results in favor of the existence of psi (or some unknown factor). This is so even when common statistical tools are used to rule out 'file drawer' cases which might occur when insignificant results are not reported. Other experiments aimed at detecting psi, especially those performed by experimenters and subjects who disbelieve in psi, have scored significantly below chance (this is called psi-missing). (Radin 1997:108-109) Despite the extremely positive results of psi experiments, however, parapsychology remains highly controversial, partially due to the lack of a theory which explains its results." (footnotes omitted)

[...]

You can start by telling me what's wrong with the above Wikipedia analysis.

I would imagine that the person/people who wrote the wikipedia article thought the same that I did: that the file drawer problem was not an issue in parapyschology. However, it seems I (and they) were mistaken, if Savva's blog post is to be believed.

Secondly, Radin's meta-analyses can't be taken at face value. As I mentioned before, his ganzfeld work can be dismissed as not being a meta-analysis at all, since it has no universal inclusion criteria. Once you see a basic mistake like that in one m-a, you start to wonder about the others.

If you want to talk about various claims of parapsychology in more detail, then starting a new thread for each protocol may be a good move.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...So let's debate it. You can start by telling me what's wrong with the above Wikipedia analysis.

This is a good critique of meta-analysis in general and Radin's in a specific instance. The Monte Carlo technique is particularly useful. http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-12/reality-check.html

 

[Rodney]

Of course, because we know so little about you, we have no idea if your opinion is worth anything or not. At least, if we apply your standards to yourself. Do you have any experience in parapsychology?

Not in conducting experiments, which I assume is true of everyone else here except for Louie. However, my point was that there are many well-known parapsychologists, and he isn't one of them.

Louie Savva chaired the 2005 PA convention, and this has been described in glowing terms as one of the best in recent years.

http://www.pflyceum.org/117.html


So it's clear that Savva is competent, and knows what he's doing. What are you basing your opinion on, by the way?

The only mention of Louie in your link is this: "A study by Louie Savva (a PF Garrett Scholarship winner) and his colleagues basically confirmed Bem’s precognitive habituation paradigm." This again raises the question of why he so abruptly left parapsychology.

And as for a long-term parapsychologist who left parapsychology disillusioned with the methods and standards employed, how about Eric Dingwall?

Didn't he die before most of the ganzfeld experiments were conducted?

 

[Moochie]

Devil's advocate, Rodney?

Evidence is still required.

M.

 

[Ersby]

Not in conducting experiments, which I assume is true of everyone else here except for Louie. However, my point was that there are many well-known parapsychologists, and he isn't one of them.

I knew of Savva before I read this entry on the blog. He's had a number of papers published in the past five or so years. If you've never heard of him, I'm afraid that reflects badly on your knowledge of parapsychology more than anything else.

The only mention of Louie in your link is this: "A study by Louie Savva (a PF Garrett Scholarship winner) and his colleagues basically confirmed Bem’s precognitive habituation paradigm." This again raises the question of why he so abruptly left parapsychology.

Talk about missing the point! We know he was the chair of the 2005 PA convention from other sources. The link demonstrates how successful the 2005 PA convention was. Put the two together.

Didn't he die before most of the ganzfeld experiments were conducted?

I see. So you only consider experiments after the death of Eric Dingwall in your belief in psi?

 

[Rodney]

I knew of Savva before I read this entry on the blog. He's had a number of papers published in the past five or so years. If you've never heard of him, I'm afraid that reflects badly on your knowledge of parapsychology more than anything else.

So what's been his most significant paper?

Talk about missing the point! We know he was the chair of the 2005 PA convention from other sources. The link demonstrates how successful the 2005 PA convention was. Put the two together.

According to your link:

"Although—or maybe because—the conference was relatively small in terms of attendance, almost everyone seemed to agree both during the conference and in discussions after the event (e.g., on the field’s chat lists) that the quality of the papers and their presentation was superior to that of most of the recent PA Conventions. Charles Tart even considered it the best PA Convention he ever attended. The beautiful bucolic landscape of the IONS Petaluma campus may have contributed to these assessments. On the negative side, there was a surprising number of scheduled presentations (4 out of 31 or almost 13%) that had to be cancelled because the presenters (including the Program Chair) failed to show up. The reasons were either unknown or due to illnesses."

So the success of the program did not seem to owe anything to Program Chair Louie Savva - - he didn't even show up! Perhaps he can inform us whether he was ill or there was another reason.

I see. So you only consider experiments after the death of Eric Dingwall in your belief in psi?

Certainly those are the best experiments. Can you refute them -- in particular, the ganzfeld experiments?