A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[cj.23]

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 have been kicking around British parapsychology for nearly twenty years, and Louie is a very well known figure with every right to be considered an expert. I knew of him over a decade ago when he was young, and he was a long time member of the SPR. He was involved as he says in one of the very few British parapsychology units at Liverpool Hope University, where I visited and had the chance to look over the Ganzfeld apparatus first hand, though we did not have much opportunity to speak. He was then involved at Nene in a similar role, and in later in a high profile role in a British TV show, which means he si one of the best known names in the field to the British public. His publications you know: he also worked in organising and promoting the field.

There are actually very few parapsychologists, period. Louie is exceptionally intelligent, motivated, and while I have met him on just two occasions I can recall, was well known throughout UK parapsychology.

While we clearly hold wildly differing philosophical opinions, I would like to say that Louie is by any standard an expert in experimental psi research, an authority, and a fine critical thinker, and I wish him every success.

cj x

 

[Jeff Corey]

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, do you have any comment on this? You are strangely silent on this after asking for a debate on the Wikipedia "article".

 

[cj.23]

Rodney, do you have any comment on this? You are strangely silent on this after asking for a debate on the Wikipedia "article".

I'm not Rodney, but if I may --

Radin appears well aware of the criticism, and in his latest book The Entangled Mind dedicates a great deal of space to how the "file drawer" problem is accounted for and dealt with. That is not to say I regard the book as unproblematic, but he does very carefully seem to be replying to the criticisms in the link. I have posted my thoughts on the book elsewhere, and would post them here but am not sure if book reports are really appropriate on this forum. Shame because there is a lot I'd like to ask about it. Anyway this all veering off topic for the thread.

cj x

 

[Jeff Corey]

I'd like to see Radin's explanation. Unfortunately my local library only lists one of his books in their computer and that seems to have gone missing, possibly due to poltergeists or a thief.
But there is no reason you shouldn't post your stuff here.

 

[cj.23]

I'd like to see Radin's explanation. Unfortunately my local library only lists one of his books in their computer and that seems to have gone missing, possibly due to poltergeists or a thief.
But there is no reason you shouldn't post your stuff here.

I've pm'd you a link to my fairly uneducated thoughts on the book. In Entangled Minds (Radin 2006) -correct title- he addresses for a lay audience three major problems with meta-analysis, which he calls apples and oranges (I know how one deals with that one: comparing disparate experimental designs etc, but Radin never really explains to my satisfaction), the quality problem, and the file drawer problem. The latter two are explained in lay terms with a funnel plot graph for file drawer for each meta-analysis addressed. I became lost as I could not tell the accuracy of Rosenthal's model, Hsu's model, etc which he uses to test for how many missing experiments are required to bring the level down to chance, or below significance. The book is extensively footnoted, and that may help a critical evaluation.

I believe Louie said earlier in the thread Radin misrepresented his data, possibly with reference to his earlier book?

 

[latent aaaack]

As a layperson, I'd be very interested in whatever Louie has to say about Radin's research from a critical perspective, especially on the Global Consciousness Project, and I hope to see commentary on your blog about that.

 

[Yahzi]

I don't deny there is evidence for god because I don't understand what "god" is supposed to mean.

What does psi mean? We know what it is supposed to mean; an effect, like the ability to read minds or predict the future. But that's no more than saying God is all-good or all-powerful. What does that actually mean? How does it work? How could it possibly work?

I'm not sure why you reject God because the concept is incoherent, but don't reject psi for the same reason. Psi has no more theory behind it than God; a series of observations of claimed effects that can't be replicated (miracles) without a theory.

 

[Yahzi]

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

There are others of us who find your comments quite interesting.

P.S. Kudos for making the right choice even when it was hard.

 

[Yahzi]

My idea was that if I was dreaming, then surely this inverted text would only be gibberish - my mind wouldn't have constructed a properly inverted text just like that. And deciphering it, I found it to be rubbish indeed, and so I was certain that I must be dreaming.

I swear I actually managed to read in a dream, but only once.

My favorite was when I was dreaming I could fly. To prove to myself it was not a dream, I flew to the top of a flag pole while wearing a Sony Walkman. I reasoned that I could not make up so much sensory stimula at once - music, air flow, and colored flag. I became quite excited at that point and went looking for my friends to tell them the great news. When I found them in the wrong house, I realized it had to be a dream. Bummer.

But I can do logic in my dreams, and when I wake up, it's still right.

 

[Ersby]

So what's been his most significant paper?

Well, that would just be a subjective opinion on my part, wouldn't it?

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.

You seem pretty desperate to not give Savva any credit. Is this so you can ignore his views on parapsychology?

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

The last post on your thread about Radin (linked to in this thread) was by me. You can start there.

 

[JMA]

There are others of us who find your comments quite interesting.

P.S. Kudos for making the right choice even when it was hard.

Same here.

 

[psp02ls]

Hi everyone.

Thanks for the comments in support. And hi to CJ. Long time no see.

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 felt my ears burning and couldn't fight the compulsion to come pick at this scab!

Rodney the least of the programme chair's job is to turn up. What did I do? Well, I had to send out calls for papers to relevant journals. I had to sift through submissions, reading them and deciding who to send them out to review. I had to organise a committee of referees. I had to email out all of the submissions, wait for comments, see if I agreed etc.

Then I had to construct the proceedings of papers. Put it all together, work out design etc. It was a good few months hard work, to produce the final proceedings (of which, I am the editor - my name should be cited in any full reference of the proceedings of that year).

But you see, I agreed to take on the position when I 'believed' in parapsychology. At a parapsychology conference in Liverpool (a couple of months before the PA) I finally had my epiphany about parapsychology. I was persuaded to finish the proceedings, but I informed everybody, well in advance, that I would not be turning up (as was my prerogative). It was a volunteer post and one that I worked hard to ensure did not just get left to flounder.

I really wanted to write in the front page 'here is this years proceedings. I hope it convinced you as much as it convinced me. I quit', but I didn't.

In terms of any later work by Radin. I will say that I've mentioned quite a few bits of his earlier work and am not interested in anything parapsychologists have to say now. I quit, remember! The global consciousness project seems to me to just be plain ridiculous (and I doubt you'll be reading about it on my blog).

 

[Rodney]

I've pm'd you a link to my fairly uneducated thoughts on the book. In Entangled Minds (Radin 2006) -correct title- he addresses for a lay audience three major problems with meta-analysis, which he calls apples and oranges (I know how one deals with that one: comparing disparate experimental designs etc, but Radin never really explains to my satisfaction), the quality problem, and the file drawer problem. The latter two are explained in lay terms with a funnel plot graph for file drawer for each meta-analysis addressed. I became lost as I could not tell the accuracy of Rosenthal's model, Hsu's model, etc which he uses to test for how many missing experiments are required to bring the level down to chance, or below significance. The book is extensively footnoted, and that may help a critical evaluation.

I don't have Entangled Minds handy at the moment, but I'll quote from it when I have the chance. Essentially, however, Radin states that the ganzfeld experiments have produced results so far in excess of chance that it is impossible to account for those results by the file drawer effect.

I believe Louie said earlier in the thread Radin misrepresented his data, possibly with reference to his earlier book?

Yes, and that's what I am most interested in Louie addressing.

 

[Rodney]

I felt my ears burning and couldn't fight the compulsion to come pick at this scab!

Rodney the least of the programme chair's job is to turn up. What did I do? Well, I had to send out calls for papers to relevant journals. I had to sift through submissions, reading them and deciding who to send them out to review. I had to organise a committee of referees. I had to email out all of the submissions, wait for comments, see if I agreed etc.

Then I had to construct the proceedings of papers. Put it all together, work out design etc. It was a good few months hard work, to produce the final proceedings (of which, I am the editor - my name should be cited in any full reference of the proceedings of that year).

But you see, I agreed to take on the position when I 'believed' in parapsychology. At a parapsychology conference in Liverpool (a couple of months before the PA) I finally had my epiphany about parapsychology. I was persuaded to finish the proceedings, but I informed everybody, well in advance, that I would not be turning up (as was my prerogative). It was a volunteer post and one that I worked hard to ensure did not just get left to flounder.

I really wanted to write in the front page 'here is this years proceedings. I hope it convinced you as much as it convinced me. I quit', but I didn't.

Okay, so perhaps the success of the 2005 meeting owed something to your efforts as Program Chair, even though you didn't attend the meeting.

In terms of any later work by Radin. I will say that I've mentioned quite a few bits of his earlier work and am not interested in anything parapsychologists have to say now. I quit, remember! The global consciousness project seems to me to just be plain ridiculous (and I doubt you'll be reading about it on my blog).

But if you think that Radin is misrepresenting the evidence, you would do everyone a favor by detailing how that is the case. Merely asserting it is not convincing.

 

[psp02ls]

Well Rodney, it's nice that you've changed from 'what the ◊◊◊◊ do you know?' to 'come and have a go if you think you're hard enough'. However I've already covered this. Davidsmith posted this a couple of days ago:

I think Louie's talking about these sets of experiments below, unless there are other examples he has. I suggest reading the Savva and French paper first.

http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/apru/hitech/mem/savva/TRI.pdf

In it, they say that Radin misrepresents and oversimplifies the original work by Klintman that inspired these time-reversed effect experiments. You can evaluate whether this is true yourself:

Radin and May's experiment -

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/articles/tri2.pdf

Also, Louie and Chris French may be referring to misrepresentation in the book "The Conscious Universe" by Radin.

The two original Klintman papers:

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1983Klintman.pdf

http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Klintman2.pdf

My blog post will really only be a simplifying of the paper in the first link. Read it and then read the paragraph written in the conscious universe on time reversed interference. Ask yourself why Radin did not mention the only other experiment conducted on time-reversed interference, which was non-significant?

He also substantially changed the methodology for his own replication and analysed some strange things!

It is one of a couple of examples I've mentioned. The other is psi-timing and precognitive habituation. Go and research them and find out the truth for yourself. Or rely on Radin's simplified interpretation. The choice is yours.

 

[Beth]

Louie,

If you don't mind, I have a few questions regarding your past beliefs. Did you, at one time, believe yourself to have psi abilities? If so, would you be willing to describe your experiences? Or did you base your belief in such abilities solely on reports and/or experiments with other people? If you've written about this elsewhere, don't feel obligated to rewrite it, but I would appreciate a link to it.

 

[Garrette]

Okay, so perhaps the success of the 2005 meeting owed something to your efforts as Program Chair, even though you didn't attend the meeting.

Hah! You did all the work. You coordinated the efforts of differing peoples and organizations. You determined content. You did the planning and oversight.

BUT YOU DIDN'T SIT ON THE DAIS so you only get a little credit.

But if you think that Radin is misrepresenting the evidence, you would do everyone a favor by detailing how that is the case. Merely asserting it is not convincing.

He has. He has told you he has.

You have been pointed to it.

You have now been pointed to it again.

 

[psp02ls]

Louie,
Did you, at one time, believe yourself to have psi abilities? If so, would you be willing to describe your experiences? Or did you base your belief in such abilities solely on reports and/or experiments with other people?

Hi Beth.

No, I never claimed any psi ability and I've never had an inexplicable paranormal experience. But I tell you what, I've been scared in haunted houses and I've seen a couple of UFOs (that bright disc I saw in the sky turned out to be a seagull!). I understand that sometimes odd things happen but it's all in the interpretation and not paranormal (and I don't want to get started on UFOs - it's an example not a discussion).

My belief in psi was purely based on other people's experiences and the empirical support. Now my opinion is that there are lots of normal explanations for weird experiences and the empirical support is a house of cards.

 

[Beth]

Hi Beth.

No, I never claimed any psi ability and I've never had an inexplicable paranormal experience. But I tell you what, I've been scared in haunted houses and I've seen a couple of UFOs (that bright disc I saw in the sky turned out to be a seagull!). I understand that sometimes odd things happen but it's all in the interpretation and not paranormal (and I don't want to get started on UFOs - it's an example not a discussion).

My belief in psi was purely based on other people's experiences and the empirical support. Now my opinion is that there are lots of normal explanations for weird experiences and the empirical support is a house of cards.

Thanks. I appreciate your response.

 

[Morrigan]

Very interesting, thanks for posting Louie.

Just a quick note: there's actually a Wikipedia stub about you, but it seems really out of date:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Savva

Someone should update it.