Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html

One small step for reason...

Actually, the "reasons" is to actually try to test for things like that people claim, like ESP, in a scientific manner like they have.

 

[omegablue]

Why hasn't JREF published their results showing psi is bunk in a scientific journal?

Or have they?

No because when they face an inquiry like this, they quickly claim that they do not mean to be scientists. It is just a game. Prove it to Randi and he will give you a million. I don´t think Randi thinks he can be "fooled". He can find any flaw wherever he have to, based on his I.Q, creativity, and the urge not to waste his lifetime reputation of being flawlessly a debunker.

 

[CFLarsen]

Holy cow , where did I claim that I have evidence in favor of paranormal? I do not, but many researchers and labs do so.

What, you can't get to this evidence? They keep it secret?

Again I cannot understand your point Larsen. And yes you are wrong if you think you proved that PEAR have produced nothing based on that 2 references you cited.

You say they have produced "something". What? Show me.

Or, like PEAR people say, they are not interested on doing so?

Yeah, like they work for decades, finding "something", but are....well, just not interested in publishing their findings, so they can get more funding?

No, they'd rather keep it secret, not publish, have to shut down due to lack of funding and then complain they aren't funded anymore.

I agree. But it does not mean that something was debunked because of that.

Eh, yes. That's exactly what it means. We have natural explanations. Until they can come up with something real, their claims have been debunked.

Why hasn't JREF published their results showing psi is bunk in a scientific journal?

Or have they?

Oh, dear. The old "JREF isn't doing science" whine. Change the record, T'ai.

 

[CFLarsen]

No because when they face an inquiry like this, they quickly claim that they do not mean to be scientists.

That is a lie. JREF does not claim to be scientists.

It is just a game. Prove it to Randi and he will give you a million. I don´t think Randi thinks he can be "fooled". He can find any flaw wherever he have to, based on his I.Q, creativity, and the urge not to waste his lifetime reputation of being flawlessly a debunker.

That is a lie. The terms are crystal clear: Randi can not get out of a test.

We've heard all these complaints before. Find something new, please.

 

[omegablue]

What, you can't get to this evidence? They keep it secret?

So you saying that they hide their data?

You say they have produced "something". What? Show me.

What would you call "something"? Accepted scientific proof?

Yeah, like they work for decades, finding "something", but are....well, just not interested in publishing their findings, so they can get more funding?

So you call them liars? They claim that they are very open about their data. This Is it? They are liars?

No, they'd rather keep it secret, not publish, have to shut down due to lack of funding and then complain they aren't funded anymore.

They are closing pretty much because of the funding issue. But the hiding of the data issue....hmmmmmmmmmm maybe not.

Eh, yes. That's exactly what it means. We have natural explanations. Until they can come up with something real, their claims have been debunked.

This is more than bias mf. This is your opinion as owner of that exaggerate skepticism site of yours. No no no the claims are not debunked, face it.

Oh, dear. The old "JREF isn't doing science" whine. Change the record, T'ai.

Ah but are they?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Some other possibilities

1) one the paranormal occurs, it is no longer paranormal, but normal. So no paranormal challenge would even apply

2) one event isn't replication that science needs, so one test won't prove anything

3) it is always more believable, to simply claim the testers were tricked than to admit any paranormal anything occured

 

[omegablue]

That is a lie. JREF does not claim to be scientists.

So, like I said....they are not scientists and therefore they are not doing science. Where is the lie?

That is a lie. The terms are crystal clear: Randi can not get out of a test.

I do not understand this statement. Please make it a lil clearer.

We've heard all these complaints before. Find something new, please.

It´s not about finding something new. This is a known fact, and I agree this is not an important topic to this discussion, so let it go.

 

[CFLarsen]

So you saying that they hide their data?

Either you don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "data", or you tried a bait-and-switch technique.

What would you call "something"? Accepted scientific proof?

Just show me what you referred to.

So you call them liars? They claim that they are very open about their data. This Is it? They are liars?

They are closing pretty much because of the funding issue. But the hiding of the data issue....hmmmmmmmmmm maybe not.

You need to understand sarcasm.

This is more than bias mf. This is your opinion as owner of that exaggerate skepticism site of yours. No no no the claims are not debunked, face it.

Nonsense.

Ah but are they?

You totally miss the point. JREF isn't a science lab. Yet, despite the lower threshold for evidence, the paranormal claimants still can't win the Challenge.

So, like I said....they are not scientists and therefore they are not doing science. Where is the lie?

Oh, for crying out loud...

The tests themselves are not unscientific at all: The tests don't require replication, that's all.

The problem lies not with JREF, but with the claimants.

I do not understand this statement. Please make it a lil clearer.

Randi cannot, after the test, simply find any "flaw" and refuse to pay. Is that clear enough?

It´s not about finding something new. This is a known fact,

What is not a "known fact"?

and I agree this is not an important topic to this discussion, so let it go.

Lies not met with truth turn into truths.

1) one the paranormal occurs, it is no longer paranormal, but normal. So no paranormal challenge would even apply

That is a lie. The terms of the challenge is crystal clear: Once the test is passed, the money is paid.

2) one event isn't replication that science needs, so one test won't prove anything

Nobody is saying that it is. But none of the applicants can even do it once. None.

3) it is always more believable, to simply claim the testers were tricked than to admit any paranormal anything occured

That is a lie. The terms of the challenge is crystal clear: Once the test is passed, the money is paid.

Please come up with something new. Repeating old falsehoods, expecting that they suddenly will come true, is not working.

 

[omegablue]

LOL Larsen you are indeed a funny boy.

Either you don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "data", or you tried a bait-and-switch technique.

No, i´m not playing any rhetorical game here. If I was I would be easily beaten. So there is any evidence hiding? What are ya trying to say?

Just show me what you referred to.

You said that they did not produced this "something" . What would that be?

You need to understand sarcasm.

Nonsense.

Oh it is? Why?

You totally miss the point. JREF isn't a science lab. Yet, despite the lower threshold for evidence, the paranormal claimants still can't win the Challenge.

This is a way more complex topic. Nobody could win this game because it is prepared for people to fail on and on. The "statistics department" of JREF knows how to raise the values of what would they call acceptable proof.

The tests themselves are not unscientific at all: The tests don't require replication, that's all.

That´s more than a little convenient eh? No replication required, and still with one shot , something is debunked?

The problem lies not with JREF, but with the claimants.

The claimants who agree to take the tests have problems. The problem of being too naive.

Randi cannot, after the test, simply find any "flaw" and refuse to pay. Is that clear enough?

Of course not, they do not leave any room for "error". The statistics for example are always way higher than the reasonable level would be. Remember that they are trying to save their million from being paid off.

What is not a "known fact"?

A not known fact? Hmm let´s say, that rubbing a pea on the tip of your nose on full-moon nights is effective against heart-attacks. This is pretty much an unknown fact.

 

[thaiboxerken]

...pretty much explains the why.

I don't agree. Those sound like typical excuses spouted by paranormalists as to why there is no scientific evidence to support their beliefs. The real "why" is because their is no evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why hasn't JREF published their results showing psi is bunk in a scientific journal?

I didn't realize the JREF was doing scientific experiments to show an effect.

 

[omegablue]

The real "why" is because their is no evidence.

So you state that this is the truth? Now you bear the load of proving this. Which is not a comfortable position I think. Go for it Boxer Ken! Round one...FIGHT!

 

[fls]

I agree. But it does not mean that something was debunked because of that. Now if this deserves funding or trashing is a matter of "who´s with who". A way more complex problem regarding the scientific elite interests and focus.

The traditional use of the term "debunked" probably has more to do with revealing the trick that someone used to fool you. When referring to paranormal research it seems to get used as synomynous with disprove. Since paranormal seems to be "something without a normal explanation", the inability to exclude a normal explanation does essentially debunk the research. I think you may be referring to something like "we have not yet exhausted all areas of study, so we do not know that we will always be unable to exclude a normal explanation"? I think we will always see variation in when people say that enough is enough, already, or that the absence of evidence is becoming sufficient to mean that there is evidence of absence (the reaction you tend to get here at JREF). I think it is possible that it is reasonable to continue paranormal research, but only if it is being performed in a manner that has the potential to be fruitful. And my big complaint (as we talked about in the Sagan/psi thread) is that I don't see that from the researchers in the field.

PEAR is actually a very good example of how not to do it. Their "significant" results seem to depend upon choosing several statistical tricks and applying them to random data. Choose other methods of analysis, and the significance disappears. Not only have they failed to exclude a normal explanation for their data (chosing not to use the analysis that makes your data insignificant doesn't serve to exclude the results), but they haven't even provided reasonable evidence that this particular avenue could be fruitful.

Linda

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you state that this is the truth?

It's the most reasonable answer.

Let's put it in perspective the possibilities are:

1. There is no evidence.

2. Scientists are in a giant conspiracy to suppress all evidence of the paranormal because (insert crazy woo reason here)?

3. Scientists don't want to learn anything new.

4. James Randi is using his own paranormal powers to suppress the evidence.




I suggest you STFU before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Choose other methods of analysis, and the significance disappears.

Such as....

 

[omegablue]

Respectful as always eh Linda?

The traditional use of the term "debunked" probably has more to do with revealing the trick that someone used to fool you. When referring to paranormal research it seems to get used as synomynous with disprove. Since paranormal seems to be "something without a normal explanation", the inability to exclude a normal explanation does essentially debunk the research.

This seems not to be right I think. This would be comparing the researches with tricks and cheats. I think this synonymous is more than a little misleading. I do not believe we are dealing with hoaxes speaking of PEAR, unless you assume that every researcher in paranormal is in fact lying, selecting data, choosing statistical methods to fit their claims. The general speech among the skeptics is that paranormal is nonsense and is debunked. Which would mean that all the researchers are either fraudulent or incompetent.

I think you may be referring to something like "we have not yet exhausted all areas of study, so we do not know that we will always be unable to exclude a normal explanation"? I think we will always see variation in when people say that enough is enough, already, or that the absence of evidence is becoming sufficient to mean that there is evidence of absence (the reaction you tend to get here at JREF). I think it is possible that it is reasonable to continue paranormal research, but only if it is being performed in a manner that has the potential to be fruitful. And my big complaint (as we talked about in the Sagan/psi thread) is that I don't see that from the researchers in the field.

The problem is Linda, that skeptics in general do not understand well what is truly behind the claims, or how the claims should be properly studied. Because they are not trained to abstract so much outside of the pre-stablished scientific framework. Thus, if they do not know it intuitively from having experienced directly, they will find it very unlikely to be true. And thus, they will require overwhelming evidence of the phenomenon because they know nothing about it and start presuming that the thing do not exist until it is proven within the current materialistic framework.

So , I think perhaps the researches are not that flawed, but the requirements to be overcame are too huge based on the ignorance of what is being tested, and this requirements do not make much sense given the nature of the claim. If the paranormal proponents claim that the influences of mind on the physical world are dim, and then produces dim results, a skeptic could think that if it´s dim, so probably it is due to bias, incompetence or fraud. Because if the thing would exist the results ought to be way more convincing to their eyes. And this is where I think the problem lies. I mean, you cannot apply testing for psi and transpersonal experiences like NDE , OBE, and etc, the same way you test newtonian physics or the chemical effect of some drug in a living organism. Mind is involved in psi claims, and science does not know much about mind at all. But in fact, when they need to debunk something, they seem to state that in fact they know much about mind. They argue that everything is an illusion, and mind is an illusion and is a side-effect of matter interactions. But people who does have this experiences are convinced intuitively because of the level of awareness involved while experiencing these things.

For example of a wrong approach is , a psychic who could "talk to the dead" like that Rosemary Altea who sometimes produces hits that are beyond normal comprehension, and still Randi says: "ahh...this is the typical fishing for information...the old cold_reading technique". But still he doesnt provide the proof for that. I do not know if cold reading can be so powerful like this. So this is an example of a thing being apparently debunked by simply denying it. Of course Randi offered Altea to take the test, but is the statistical significance required for the test a fair one? When involving human performances be it physical of psychological, it is not plausible to expect the person to be 100% correct. The claims are that these gifts are rare, and they are dim if put to lab tests. And in fact they produce dim results. So what is the problem exactly? Are they expecting the same level of precision as a hard science like physics? Again, it seems they will never accept the claims nor the results, they will always insist that there´s no effect other than statistical flukes, fraud, data selecting, file drawer or plain incompetence.

Aside from this, I want to make you a question Linda, as you are involved in medical researches. If the placebo effect is a very known fact, so factual that could ruin an entire experiment if not controlled properly, would it not be a confirmation of mind-over-matter?

PEAR is actually a very good example of how not to do it. Their "significant" results seem to depend upon choosing several statistical tricks and applying them to random data. Choose other methods of analysis, and the significance disappears. Not only have they failed to exclude a normal explanation for their data (chosing not to use the analysis that makes your data insignificant doesn't serve to exclude the results), but they haven't even provided reasonable evidence that this particular avenue could be fruitful.

So you are saying that the other statistic methods that they refused to apply are always suitable to produce the same results for the same effect regardless of what is being studied?

Thanks for the response.

 

[omegablue]

It's the most reasonable answer.

Ah...ok , it is way different than stating that this is the truth. Anyway, you forgot to say that is the most reasonable answer TO YOU.

Let's put it in perspective the possibilities are:

1. There is no evidence.

2. Scientists are in a giant conspiracy to suppress all evidence of the paranormal because (insert crazy woo reason here)?

3. Scientists don't want to learn anything new.

4. James Randi is using his own paranormal powers to suppress the evidence.

5. Scientists that are skeptical against the claims are really ignorant on the subject, therefore the criticism is not tenable.

I´m pretty unsure of the 5 also, but....it is a possibility

I suggest you STFU before you make yourself look even dumber than you already have.

In my opinion you are the dumb one here. You would rather troll than arguing and apparently gets easily irritated/offended when someone defy your beliefs. Chill kid! Go hit a sand sack for a while. You remind me of that "The Atheist"...pretty awful also.

 

[Bob Klase]

Some other possibilities

1) one the paranormal occurs, it is no longer paranormal, but normal. So no paranormal challenge would even apply

Apply for the challenge and come to an agreement on what you will do under what conditions. If you do what you agreed under the agreed conditions then you get the million whether it was paranormal or not.

2) one event isn't replication that science needs, so one test won't prove anything

The Challenge doesn't claim to be science. It doesn't claim it will prove anything. It will just win you a million dollars.

3) it is always more believable, to simply claim the testers were tricked than to admit any paranormal anything occured

It is always more believable to simply claim paranormal powers than to actually demonstrate them under conditions that minimize the chance to cheat.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Apply for the challenge and come to an agreement on what you will do under what conditions. If you do what you agreed under the agreed conditions then you get the million whether it was paranormal or not.

But if paranormal, when done, becomes normal, why would any paranormal rules apply? They'd fail to apply since it is no longer paranormal.

The Challenge doesn't claim to be science. It doesn't claim it will prove anything.

So there's no point then if someone is interested in persuing science to examine their or others' claims.

It is always more believable to simply claim paranormal powers than to actually demonstrate them under conditions that minimize the chance to cheat.

The bottom line is that if one makes a challenge and says "I always have an out", the challenge isn't being offered in good faith. Yet another reason to not give it serious attention.

 

[omegablue]

I think Dawkins pretty much nailed it on an Amazing Meeting when he asked Randi for him to specify for what he would pay up. Because there is always something that is "perinormal" in science , and if this something is discovered it would be physics and not paranormal anymore, so what is the kind of thing that Randi would pay up? I noticed an expression of worry in Randi´s face (like, "hell what is he asking me?") when he adressed this question to him, and then he quickly change his expression of worry to certainty and said that same old thing: "we would be happy to pay up because then we will be discovering something wonderful and bla bla bla..."