A parapsychologist writes about leaving parapsychology

[davidsmith73]

Ok, sorry Louie and others. I got fantastically drunk over the weekend and I think I've only just recovered. Anyway, this is my take on the Stroop task papers. Please excuse the fact that what I've written may be a bit difficult to read sometimes.

Louie and Chris French state that Dean Radin has misrepresented and oversimplified the original time-reversed interference findings by Klintman. It seems to centre on this statement made by Radin in "the conscious univserse":

"Klintman was surprised to find more variation than he had expected in the first reaction times. He investigated further and was astonished to discover that the initial reaction times were faster when the color patch and color name matched, and slower when the following colour name mismatched." p 117

If you read the whole description of Klintman's experiments in "the conscious univserse", this statement by Radin looks like its referring to informal observations made by Klintman (as described in the original Klintman paper) rather than the findings from Klintman's formal testing of his time reversed interference hypothesis (TRIH). Even so, having read the orignal Klintman paper, the TRIH does not exclusively mean that initial reaction times are faster when the color patch and color name match, and slower when the following colour name mismatch. It can be vice versa.

Ok, this is where it gets muddy.

From Radin's description, he may appear to be saying that initial reaction times were exclusively faster when the color patch and color name match, and slower when the following colour name mismatch. But he may not necessarily have meant that. His description of the conventional Stroop effect in "the conscious univserse", preceding his description of the Klintman experiments, only talks about observations of slower reaction times to the second stimulus on mismatch trials - lets call this a "normal" stroop effect. It seems natural and sensible, to me, to talk about an aspect of Klintman's findings that relate to this particular "normal" stroop effect. With this interpretation in mind, Radin is not really saying anything inaccurate IMO. If you read the Klintman paper, he did find that the initial reaction times were, on average, faster when the color patch and color name matched, and slower when the following colour name mismatched, but he found this only for people who displayed a "normal" stroop effect, ie, a slower reaction to the second stimulus on mismatch trials. And this "normal" stroop effect is what Radin is referring to in "the conscious univserse". It seems reasonable to me that Radin's description of Klintman's experiments should not get too complicated (especially after reading the original experiments!). "The conscious univserse" is aimed at the non-scientist after all.

Furthermore, in the 2000 Radin and May paper they formally describe the TRIH quite adequately in my mind and I don't think they oversimplify the hypothesis.

All in all, I think Radin should have clarified more, but I am doubtful about misrepresentation. The readers of "the conscious univserse" can always look at the primary source.

Ask yourself, why did Klintman use colour in only 1 out of 4 experiments, but Radin only mentions the colour task. Why did Klintman not run any more experiments.

Why did Radin not mention the failed replication of Camfferman in the conscious universe? Why did Radin use colour? Why did Radin change or simplify Klintman's hypotheses? Why didn't he use the same equipment that Klintman used? Why did he not use the same analysis?

I don't know. Such questioning doesn't seem very scientific to me. Can you suggest to us some answers?

You see what I found was that when I applied the different statistical tests that the different authors used, to my own data, that I got 3 different results.

You didn't use the same statistical test that Radin and May used. I am correct? You used a t-test of the difference between reaction times for congruent and incongruent trials, where Radin and May analysed the correlation between the difference between the reaction times to the two stimuli. So this is an example of a statement that could, in principle, lead me to accuse you of the same kind of misrepresentation that you direct towards Radin. It happens when people are unclear what they mean and its easily done. But I wouldn't read as much into it as you do.

 

[Ersby]

Fine, but how do you explain the overall results of ganzfeld studies? Was there a design flaw common to most or all of the positive studies?

Huh? Have you got me on ignore or something?

If your understanding of the "overall results of ganzfeld studies" comes from Radin, then it's wrong. See my post above.

If not, then please explain what your understanding of the "overall results" is.

And don't think that there's one flaw that can explain everything. There are many issues with the ganzfeld work. When I was writing my articles for Skeptical Report, I did consider using the title "Twenty Ways To Get The Same Experiment Wrong."

 

[Rodney]

Huh? Have you got me on ignore or something?

If your understanding of the "overall results of ganzfeld studies" comes from Radin, then it's wrong. See my post above.

If not, then please explain what your understanding of the "overall results" is.

My understanding of the overall results comes from Entangled Minds. Again, at p. 120, Radin states: "From 1974 through 2004 a total of 88 ganzfeld experiments reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials were conducted." In my previous post, I didn't quote the endnote that is at the end of that sentence, but here it is: "This excludes a few of the earliest ganzfeld studies that couldn't be evaluated with a hit vs. miss type of analysis."

Are you saying that Radin's exclusion of a few of the earliest studies introduced a bias? If so, what did those studies find?

And don't think that there's one flaw that can explain everything. There are many issues with the ganzfeld work. When I was writing my articles for Skeptical Report, I did consider using the title "Twenty Ways To Get The Same Experiment Wrong."

So how about informing me of what those issues are?

 

[Ersby]

My understanding of the overall results comes from Entangled Minds. Again, at p. 120, Radin states: "From 1974 through 2004 a total of 88 ganzfeld experiments reporting 1,008 hits in 3,145 trials were conducted." In my previous post, I didn't quote the endnote that is at the end of that sentence, but here it is: "This excludes a few of the earliest ganzfeld studies that couldn't be evaluated with a hit vs. miss type of analysis."

Are you saying that Radin's exclusion of a few of the earliest studies introduced a bias? If so, what did those studies find?

Yes, it did introduce a bias. The experiments missing from Radin's work have a much lower hit rate than those he included. The missing experiments from 1974-1985 were at around 28% (I'm working from memory here), and those missing from 1985-2000 were pretty much at chance. Since 2000 all experiments average out at 27%. I'd need to know which experiments Radin did or didn't include before saying whether there's a bias or not.

I should make clear that I don't think this is a systematic bias on Radin's part, more an opportunistic one: he's taken the successful results, which are the best known, and put them together. He doesn't seem to have explored any further into the issue.

And pretty much all of the missing experiments from Honorton's m-a could be analysed in a hit-miss way.

So how about informing me of what those issues are?

Let's deal with one issue at a time.

Btw, should we split this thread? Any passing moderators who could do this?

 

[Rodney]

Yes, it did introduce a bias. The experiments missing from Radin's work have a much lower hit rate than those he included. The missing experiments from 1974-1985 were at around 28% (I'm working from memory here), and those missing from 1985-2000 were pretty much at chance. Since 2000 all experiments average out at 27%. I'd need to know which experiments Radin did or didn't include before saying whether there's a bias or not.

If you're correct, Radin's endnote is incorrect. Again, that endnote reads: "This excludes a few of the earliest ganzfeld studies that couldn't be evaluated with a hit vs. miss type of analysis." So, Radin is clearly stating that he has not excluded any but the earliest studies, nor has he excluded any studies at all on the basis of low hit rates. Rather, he is stating that his exclusions were based only upon the earliest studies' protocols, which, he claims, were not amenable to a hit vs. miss type of analysis. If that's wrong, you need to provide specifics on the studies that have been excluded by Radin.

I should make clear that I don't think this is a systematic bias on Radin's part, more an opportunistic one: he's taken the successful results, which are the best known, and put them together. He doesn't seem to have explored any further into the issue.

And pretty much all of the missing experiments from Honorton's m-a could be analysed in a hit-miss way.

Again, if you are correct, that would show a serious bias on Radin's part, but specifics are needed.

Btw, should we split this thread? Any passing moderators who could do this?

Splitting is fine by me.

 

[Ersby]

Just to say that the discussion re. the ganzfeld is continued here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70950

 

[steenkh]

Just to say that the discussion re. the ganzfeld is continued here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70950

Thank you! I had not noticed it.

 

[psp02ls]

So unless you give substantial context, I can't agree or disagree with what you are saying, nor should anyone else.

I know that you claim to have no interest in writing about parapsychology, but you evidently do have an interest in stating your opinion about the non-existence of psi and disdain for parapsychology. So the most informative thing to do would be to refer to specific experiments, put forward your alternative explanations and perhaps explain why you think these explanations are more likely. And the reference to evolution is just as lacking in context.

At the risk of taking the other thread off topic, I'll post my response to David here.

Some people are evidently interested in my experiences in parapsychology. I did not spend as long a time in the area as Susan Blackmore or Daryl Bem, but I came, I saw and I learnt. That you are not interested in learning anything from my general conclusions, or specific examples (such as the TRI paper, which has been much discussed) is of no surprise to me. As I have said often, I did not and do not expect believers in psi to agree with me.

As for my reference to evolution lacking context, herein lies the problem as I see it. All life, including all humans, have been built according to natural selection. You were not made by god and do not have an all powerful soul, which can see forwards in time, backwards in time and move things at a distance.

To say that evolution is irrelevant to human psychology is just plain ridiculous.

The scientific thing to do, is to assess what we do and don't actually know. What is consciousness? What is time? These are difficult problems and ones which we cannot yet answer definitively. Instead of wasting your life investigating anomalous psychological results (which are often found through dubious statistical practices) let alone normal methodological influences, in the hope that the blips you find are evidence for paranormal functioning, perhaps we should be tackling the more important problems our species has to face.

Of course, if you want to spend your life worshipping god, hunting Nessie, or even studying the paranormal, I cannot stop you. But do not declare yourself the sole bastion of science and reason.

Science is not blind. It builds steadily upon ground that we know to be stable. Parapsychology is a community of researchers who blindly ignore the negative results and build, error upon error, a body of research which sits outside of science and yet demands attention.

Go, away. And when you've won the million dollar prize, we might be interested.

 

[Dr B]

Louie,

....edit.....Anyway, back in the 90's Susan Blackmore asked "Do we need a new Parapsychology?" Surely there is till room for the investigation of what underlies the weird spontaneous cases? I'm not saying its paranormal - I tend to believe all these things have naturalistic explanations, albeit some may be outside of our current scientific understanding.

The utter disillusionment with psi research I can see, but what of work like Wiseman et al. on Edinburgh Vaults, Tandy on infrasound, etc. Do you still have any interest at all in spontaneous cases?...edit...

cj x

Good points. Blackmore was the best thing in the UK parapsychological field during her time researching areas like OBEs / NDEs and her work still stands the test of time (though I am less familiar with the lab-tests of specific claims). I also agree regarding the nature of spotaneous cases - as this is where all parapsychology originally came from.

For me, I have always divided parapsychology up into two basic forms - those of the spontaneous experience where people, who often claim little interest or ability in the paranormal, report striking experiences (i.e., haunting / apparitions / OBEs / NDES) and the 'claims of the paranormal' aspect where Randi and others have made a big contribution. It is a distinction that works for me and i think this field is at its most interesting when it is trying to explore neuro-cognitive aspects of the strange experience (but that's my own bias....).

If these experiences are delusional and hallucinatory (and I believe they are) the challenge now is to develop models for why a normal brain (in the absence of pathology / drugs etc) can produce experiences that are very similar to such contexts. How and why does a normal brain spontaneously do this? What elecits these expeirences and what is important for the content of them? Questions like these are the future.

On a side point I have to say - I dont really find the Edinburgh vault study that convincing other than 'people feel spooky in dark spooky places' and the infrasound papers have been recently challenged in the most recent JSPR. However, these are tangental points and maybe should be discussed elsewhere.....

..now back to the thread......

 

[Rodney]

The scientific thing to do, is to assess what we do and don't actually know. What is consciousness? What is time? These are difficult problems and ones which we cannot yet answer definitively.

Which is why we need parapsychologists.

 

[Dr B]

Which is why we need parapsychologists.

Unless I am mistaken consciousness etc, and unanswered questions are the remit of mainstream science and not a necessary condition for the existence of parapsychologists.

 

[Rodney]

Unless I am mistaken consciousness etc, and unanswered questions are the remit of mainstream science and not a necessary condition for the existence of parapsychologists.

Only if you assume what Louie now does -- that there is no such thing as psi. If you're open-minded, you want psi research to continue, especially when it is at least arguable that psi has already met the standard burden of scientific proof.

 

[davidsmith73]

At the risk of taking the other thread off topic, I'll post my response to David here.

Some people are evidently interested in my experiences in parapsychology. I did not spend as long a time in the area as Susan Blackmore or Daryl Bem, but I came, I saw and I learnt. That you are not interested in learning anything from my general conclusions, or specific examples (such as the TRI paper, which has been much discussed) is of no surprise to me.

As I've repeatedly said, I'm interested in the specifics of how you came to your general conclusions. If you can't remember them, thats fine. And if you are refusing to discuss the specifics because you are not interested, then thats fine too. But I simply cannot discuss what you are saying if you don't provide any context. That's not refusing to learn, it’s being sceptical.

I have commented on the "misrepresentation" from Radin and TRI experiments above, in case you haven't seen it. I don't agree with your conclusion that the TRI effect probably constitutes an ostensible effect when there really isn't one. You performed 10 statistical tests for the TRI hypothesis on the data from studies I and II in your TRI paper. From these 10 tests, 7 produced non-significant results. The 3 that produced positive results did so on data that did not show a conventional stroop-based effect. This indicates that your data is not reliable, hence why this is the study that gave differing results depending on the statistical test. If the TRI effect is down to statistical artifact then why didn't your other study produce significant results? So what your conclusion should have been is that an ostensible TRI effect can be found depending on which statistical test is used on one of your data sets. This does not prove that significant results from other experiments are based on statistical artifact. To demonstrate that the TRI effect represnts an artifact per se would involve doing multiple appropriate tests on the data from many other successful TRI experiments, for example Radin and May 2000.

As I have said often, I did not and do not expect believers in psi to agree with me.

Nor would I, since you haven't really given much evidence to believe in what you are saying.

As for my reference to evolution lacking context, herein lies the problem as I see it. All life, including all humans, have been built according to natural selection. You were not made by god and do not have an all powerful soul, which can see forwards in time, backwards in time and move things at a distance.

This doesn't even begin to make sense in the context of what you were previously talking about in the other thread. You said that some parapsychologists presented experiments and you objected that they were not considering or asking questions about alternative explanations to their results. You then made an out of context statement that "they just didn't understand evolution". How does this, and your comment above, relate to your objections to fellow parapsychologists experiments?

And I don't agree with your assumption that psi involves some "all powerful soul". Also why does god have to come into this? You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about what would be involved if psi were real.

To say that evolution is irrelevant to human psychology is just plain ridiculous.

I never said that, in case you are implying that I have. I still can't understand in what context you are making this statement.

Of course, if you want to spend your life worshipping god, hunting Nessie, or even studying the paranormal, I cannot stop you. But do not declare yourself the sole bastion of science and reason.

I'm perplexed by your responses. I'm an atheist remember. And where have I declared myself the sole bastion of science and reason?

Science is not blind. It builds steadily upon ground that we know to be stable. Parapsychology is a community of researchers who blindly ignore the negative results...

As opposed to pseudoscepticism which ignores the positive results...

Go, away. And when you've won the million dollar prize, we might be interested.

I wish you well with your new family.

 

[Dr B]

Only if you assume what Louie now does -- that there is no such thing as psi. If you're open-minded, you want psi research to continue, especially when it is at least arguable that psi has already met the standard burden of scientific proof.

Not at all. Consciousness is the remit of mainstream science - irrespective of parapsychology. Look around you; cognitive psychology, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, brain imaging and yes - even some more useful aspects of philosophy. Nothing to do with parapsychology. I have never met a single parapsychologist that can tell me what it is that 'alters' in and altered state of consciousness, or perhaps more importantly, what it is that stays the same. This does not stop such descriptive metaphors from being reecruited as apparent 'explanations' to all but those of us that can see (and appreciate) the difference.

Also in relation to your other points - you need to be open minded to realise PSI has not been demonstrated at all. Indeed, parapsychology is unique in all 'sciences' in not having a single replicable and widely accepted effect that supports a PSI hypothesis.

PSI has not met the burden at all. While I always like to feel that more research is always warrented, part of me also thinks that maybe its time we moved on (at least with lab tests of claims).

 

[Rodney]

Not at all. Consciousness is the remit of mainstream science - irrespective of parapsychology. Look around you; cognitive psychology, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neurophysiology, brain imaging and yes - even some more useful aspects of philosophy. Nothing to do with parapsychology.

You're making the same assumption that Louie is -- there is no such thing as psi. But what if you're wrong? The disciplines you cite aren't even examining psi.

I have never met a single parapsychologist that can tell me what it is that 'alters' in and altered state of consciousness, or perhaps more importantly, what it is that stays the same.

I don't think that's their job. Rather, they are simply trying to establish the existence or non-existence of psi.

This does not stop such descriptive metaphors from being reecruited as apparent 'explanations' to all but those of us that can see (and appreciate) the difference.

Okay, but what do you think consciousness is? And can you definitively say that it excludes the possibility of psi?

Also in relation to your other points - you need to be open minded to realise PSI has not been demonstrated at all. Indeed, parapsychology is unique in all 'sciences' in not having a single replicable and widely accepted effect that supports a PSI hypothesis.

PSI has not met the burden at all. While I always like to feel that more research is always warrented, part of me also thinks that maybe its time we moved on (at least with lab tests of claims).

I disagree, but you may want to weigh in on the "Psi in the Ganzfeld" thread.

 

[Dr B]

You're making the same assumption that Louie is -- there is no such thing as psi. But what if you're wrong? The disciplines you cite aren't even examining psi.

Wrong. I am not making any assumption - you are. PSI could exist - but as there is no evidence for it - and it has been researched vigourously for years - the odds are against it existing. There is a difference between possibilities and probabilities. Science is about probabilities - even when they go against the results you want. My points were mainly about the recruiting of notions of consciousness in paranormal theories.

Most parapsychologists do not seem to be familiar will any of the contemporary findings from neuroscience and consciousness and many use concepts and ideas that are 40 years out of date as far as the mainstream is concerned.

I don't think that's their job. Rather, they are simply trying to establish the existence or non-existence of psi.

In the first instance yes - but after 60 years of research its a serious omission. So you are now fudging the debate and the answer (because you dont have an answer). If you are going to recruit the notion of consciousness in any explaination - you need to define the object of study to some arguable level of discourse and understanding. Feel free to have a go.

Okay, but what do you think consciousness is? And can you definitively say that it excludes the possibility of psi?

The mind is what the brain does. Conscousness is an emergent property of brain action. However, it is for those making the claims to sketch out their frameworks and assumptions - not me. However, my answer above is neither controversial or unhelpful.

No one can say it definately does not exist and your question is logically flawed because of that. Science is about probabilities and provisonal truths. I can say it is so highly unlikely to exist that it would seem perverse to beleive that it does - based on the current evidence. Science is not deterministic - but that does not add any credence to the claim that such things are likely to be true. You need positive evidence.

You know, there is always a possibility that dropping a person into an erupting volcano will not kill them, but the probability of them being killed suggests otherwise. Would you base your action on the possibility or the probability?????

 

[Beth]

The mind is what the brain does. Conscousness is an emergent property of brain action.

This is an assumption, a starting place. If you begin with the assumption that the mind is what the brain does, then you can attempt to explain consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. There is some fairly good evidence for this, if you are willing to accept the starting assumption.

 

[Darat]

This is an assumption, a starting place. If you begin with the assumption that the mind is what the brain does, then you can attempt to explain consciousness as an emergent property of the brain. There is some fairly good evidence for this, if you are willing to accept the starting assumption.

And if you aren't willing to accept this as a "starting assumption" what conclusion does the "fairly good evidence" lead you to?

 

[davidsmith73]

Wrong. I am not making any assumption - you are. PSI could exist - but as there is no evidence for it - and it has been researched vigourously for years - the odds are against it existing. There is a difference between possibilities and probabilities. Science is about probabilities - even when they go against the results you want. My points were mainly about the recruiting of notions of consciousness in paranormal theories.

I don't think Rodney is making an assumption. He, and I, believe that there is evidence for psi. I would say that the odds are in favour of it existing.

Parapsychology must include the phenomenon of consciousness as a major part of its subject matter because most of the primary sources that show us there may be something to study in the first place involve anomalous information acquisition that can be consciously recalled. So any model of consciousness, or declarative memory for that matter, must account for these phenomena too.

Most parapsychologists do not seem to be familiar will any of the contemporary findings from neuroscience and consciousness and many use concepts and ideas that are 40 years out of date as far as the mainstream is concerned.

Examples?

In the first instance yes - but after 60 years of research its a serious omission. So you are now fudging the debate and the answer (because you dont have an answer). If you are going to recruit the notion of consciousness in any explaination - you need to define the object of study to some arguable level of discourse and understanding. Feel free to have a go.

I think you have it the wrong way round. Any complete explanation of consciousness must be able to include and predict psi phenomena, if such things turn out to be reliably demonstrated enough to justify this inclusion.

The mind is what the brain does. Conscousness is an emergent property of brain action. However, it is for those making the claims to sketch out their frameworks and assumptions - not me. However, my answer above is neither controversial or unhelpful.

I don't see any conflict between the existence of psi and your definition of the mind. Psi might simply be seen as another way (as yet unidentified) that information is exchanged between the environment and the modules of the brain responsible for conscious perception.

 

[Beth]

And if you aren't willing to accept this as a "starting assumption" what conclusion does the "fairly good evidence" lead you to?

If someone isn't willing to accept the starting assumption, then I don't think it would lead them anywhere.