Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[omegablue]

People will keep saying "there is no evidence!" Not so! There is "no proof!"
Or have I finally lost the plot?

cj x

Bother not c.j , either he is way too dumb or he is clearly simulating a false understanding on the subject which is a very known rhetorical technique. I will not risk guessing which one of the two hypothesis fits to him. It makes me sad anyway...

 

[gnome]

All those thinking Randi is a fraud... have you ever considered that if you wanted to discredit him, the very best thing you could do would be to succeed at the challenge and then let the whole world see him weasel out of it? Wouldn't that be worth it?

 

[juryjone]

So , it´s not science at all... it´s just a show, entertainment. The battle between Randi and people who he´s sure that are less competent cheaters than him. Not worth of being taken seriously for someone interested in the scientific truth of paranormal.

Please explain to me, as clearly as you can, how the rules for the challenge may lead one to believe that the point of the challenge is to prove that Randi is a better cheater than the claimant. It will help your case enormously if you could point to the actual wording within the challenge rules which led you to this conclusion.

If it would not be too much trouble, I would also be interested in some one line descriptions of what you consider to be "the scientific truth of paranormal".

 

[omegablue]

Having participated in a PEAR lab experiment (a friend of mine did it for her engineering course and I decided to help her out) I found their results incredibly interesting, mostly because my friend was totally against the idea that the test could work. I really took solace in her skepticism and I know she tried her hardest in the situation to keep the experiment honest, but there is only so much you can do when you use someone else's equipment and you are working on a class determined time frame.

Randi's prize really did it for me on this one. My friend did her test over two days with almost no money (aside from the equipment PEAR gave her) and got results. Anyone who wouldn't spend 2 days to make a million knows that their work is a sham. Honest research publishes its protocols, and the more I learned about PEAR the less I was ready to believe that the people there were doing honest work.

What I hate the most about the PEAR lab was the fact that all they did was give me doubt--that they did not prove their point, that they did not run experiments that logically followed from their previous experiments in order to figure out what was going on. Some of the results of my friends analysis still puzzle me (mostly because I don't know exactly how using PEAR's equipment skewed it), but I no longer have any faith in the work done in that lab.

I was ready to believe their findings, but what I got from them was less of an understanding of the beauty of our universe and not more. Deep down inside I wanted their results to be accurate, but it was all a dishonest scam and that kills me. I'm as glad that the university that I know and love no longer employs these people as I am sorry that my degree associates me with their work.

This report is quite interesting, but I would like to know more. It seems pretty vague and like you are basing you judgement on personal frustration more than in an objective fashion.

Why they offered you doubt? Did they deny to show you the protocols? Who? And more, why do you think that PEAR equipment might have skewed the results? In other words....expose this scam properly...names?!?

 

[omegablue]

removed this post because I judged that this was somewhat flaming.

 

[omegablue]

Do you understand the difference between "data" and "evidence"? You keep moving back and forth, alternately referring to PEAR's "data" and "evidence". They are not the same.

Do you have data or evidence?

You choose to accept that there´s no evidence for paranormal and keeps moaning about it. I have nothing to say to you anymore regarding this issue. You are a complete bias mf. So there is no evidence? Fine by me, keep going nowhere...

Oh, no. You referred to this "something". You tell me what it would be.

This something would be the results then, implying that there was a spotted unknown effect. Let´s see what you will nit-pick after this.

I told you: Claims are debunked when we have natural explanations. Until you can come up with something better, it stays debunked.

My complaint is that skeptics in general (perhaps you included) do not face it as you put it. If something is debunked than it is, and period. And they force that thing to be forgotten by ridiculing it and labeling as ultimately debunked.

Would you say that the idea of fairies is debunked?

The idea is not plausible, other than the mental explanations of lucid dreams or hallucinations. Fairies are way less plausible than telepahy and ESP in general. But not debunked.

A lie.

If a claimant said he could flip a coin and get "heads" 50% of the time, it would certainly not qualify. But what if the claimant said he could get 50.1% out of 20 tries? Would that be statistically valid? Hard to tell, without a statistics department.

It is interesting - revealing - that you, on one hand, criticize JREF for not being scientific, but you also criticize them for seeking scientific support.

If you have examples of JREF rigging a test so it is impossible to win, let's see your evidence. Put up or shut up.

But probably Randi would not be satisfied if the person said 60% would him? He would prolly argue for 80% or over this. This is the problem regarding the statistical issue of the show. How it can be fair if they are the judges. They, the people who would have to pay the million will judge!! Oh my... this is trash.

More dishonesty. Who said that one failed test would debunk something? All a failed test means is that the money isn't won. But one passed test means you win a million bucks!

That's pretty good odds, provided you can do what you claim to do.

You love calling people liars, dishonest... You a true figure mf! The failing IS being debunked. Randi knows how and loves to ridicule people in the media. He could disguise it with lovely words like: "well, he believes he possess these powers, and etc etc, but he could not pass the test, so..." in fact he want to say the person is full of ****. I´m not stating this as truth, but that´s my suspicion.

Most of them are, yes. But not for the reasons you give. They are naive, because they honestly believe they can do it. When they take the test, they fail. Not because the test is rigged, but because they can't do what they say they can.

Those who refuse to take the test, make up all kinds of excuses and - as you - lie about it.

More laughs. Again, everyone who takes the tests are just being naive to believing to possess powers only?? How can you be sure about that, how can you be so sure about the honesty of this trick show? And yes, based on your words you are sure, and not only thinks that there´s no evidence for that "accusation".

Randi also makes excuses not to accept some tests, like Rico Kolodzey´s one. The reasons he gave me for not doing so were to say the very least, laughable.

Prove it. Name one test where the statistics were set way than the reasonable level would be.

Put up or shut up.

I have reasons to suspect you are playing that rhetorical trick of simulating the false understanding on what is being told.

On the contrary, Randi has several times expressed his wish to see the million bucks be paid, simply because it would be worth it.

Do you believe this pal? Oh no... Anyway you welcome to believe whatever you want, but you are not doing a good job to defend Randi´s position. In fact you do not need defending him because he´s not being charged nor sued. I´m just making observations and declaring my skepticism on him and about his show.

I meant "a known fact". What is a "known fact"?

Any known fact you mean? A known fact is for example , we live on a planet we call Earth. Is this a rhetorical trap or what?

Again, if you have evidence that Randi cheats, let's see it. Put up or shut up.

Are you deliberately simulating a false understanding on what I said about this or you are just being __________ ?? (insert one of thaiboxerken´s adjectives).

 

[omegablue]

If you think I'm being disrespectful, please consider that you may have misinterpreted what I am saying, or you may be reading something as sarcasm when it is not. If I am sarcastic, I either make it really obvious, or I specifically label it as sarcasm (and I rarely use sarcasm anyway).

Sorry Linda, I will have to stop posting for now. But I wanted you just to know that I´m not being sarcastic, but literal!! You are always respectful, never offend and do offer one of the best arguments on the forums. That´s it. This misunderstading is prolly due to my limited english skills. Anyway, sorry for that!! I did nt mean you were disrespectful but the other way around!

p:s: i´ll respond more later!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

I knew that!


From the original article:

“If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”

Amen, brother, amen.

 

[cj.23]

And the semantics game is continued....

That's pretty much the point tbk - I'm challenging the semantic way the game is played, by saying the rules may be actually being misread - I'm not saying that the outcome is likely to be one way or another.

Though I am deeply bothered about how one can actually prove a paranormal claim now - it would cease to be paranormal, obviously, and yes I do think Randi would pay out no questions asked.

Question: if I said last month that under some circumstances I could read your mind to determine your intentions that was a paranormal claim. This week it isn't. It's a mundane claim. If in 1274 I said I could watch a group of men in London kicking a pigs bladder around a field, while sitting at home in Cambridge, that was a paranormal claim - now its a normal one. Why do you think it unlikely that some paranormal claims will become possible in the future?


cj x

 

[gnome]

Why do you think it unlikely that some paranormal claims will become possible in the future?
cj x

In general, I consider this to be inevitable, that some things we will do in the future would seem paranormal now. When that has happened in the past, it's been by people that were not afraid to show it off on demand. And, the phenomenon didn't disappear in the face of careful testing.

 

[fls]

Nope, owing to a simple error in your logic. This may apply if
paranormal is not equal to natural

You are confusing supernatural - above, beyond, or an arbitrary exception to the laws of nature

with paranormal - a phenomenon not explicable in the light of any generally recognised scientific hypothesis, yet assumed to be naturalistic, and hence within the purview of science.

It is completely pointless for science to attempt to study supernatural claims. I am not sure supernatural even makes sense as a concept.

However, one would expect natural explanations to appear in evidence for naturalistic paranormal phenomena.

I would like to discuss this part a bit more, because paranormal and supernatural both seem to describe the same thing - something that is "outside the possibilities defined by natural or scientific laws". It seems the two words are used pretty much interchangeably. Can you give some examples of both and explain what criteria you would use to make that distinction?

Linda

 

[fls]

Sorry Linda, I will have to stop posting for now. But I wanted you just to know that I´m not being sarcastic, but literal!! You are always respectful, never offend and do offer one of the best arguments on the forums. That´s it. This misunderstading is prolly due to my limited english skills. Anyway, sorry for that!! I did nt mean you were disrespectful but the other way around!

Okay. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

I originally thought you were being straightforward, but something in your sentence struck me as slightly off when I re-read it (plus it was followed up by a paragraph where it looked like you thought that I thought all paranormal researchers were performing sleight-of-hand tricks ), so I wasn't confident about which way to interpret it.

Linda

 

[Flange Desire]

Re OP - Great news that PEAR is going down the gurgler!

Just came to read this thread and already we have 3 pages with all the old semantic sparring and crapola respewed.

As many posted would know, the fight for reason on this topic has a very long history here.
Perhaps OmegaBlue and cj.23 might peruse that history.
I think they will then find it has all been covered before. Regurgitated ad infinitum.

“If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.”
Yes, the sheer volume of statistics was a very effective smokescreen.
Much simpler and foolproof test designs could have easily cleared the smoke.

Short story for those pesky bleevers ...
There was no clear evidence to support the notion that the RN generators were influenced by the mind.

If you pesky bleevers refute that short story, then please present the evidence to the contrary.

And how easy would it be to replicate if real? (rhet)
Easy million! Go fer it!

 

[omegablue]

Paranormal research should be evaluated using the same methods that we bring to the evaluation of any other research.

Yes, but judging the results perhaps not. While you expect highly positive rates while testing something that is under a scope of a nice theoretical system, like for example mechanics or electricity, you cannot do this to a phenomenon that has no theory at all and use it as na argument against its sole existence.. The paranormal research is still struggling about in first place showing that something exists, not trying to fit it to any known theory yet. So many many researches produce highly positives that cannot be plausibly explainable by any other factor (and even Hyman admitted it in some cases), but still afterwards it continues to be bombed with possible natural explanations and therefore labelled as debunked.
Well, possible does not mean sensate or plausible necessarily. This is precisely what I think that cannot be done to psi in order to investigate it further. You do not need to rule out every possible normal explanation of what is being obtained to be sure that the effect is being obtained. When a theory about it is made, yes we have to extensively rule out everything we can that would invalidate the theory.
In fact no other area of research had to pass through such a harsh criticism and way higher standards and requirements for being considered valid. I might suspect that it occurs way more to psi because it goes against any accepted theory. I don´t know but I personally think that there is na exaggeration about the statistical standards to which a psi test should produce to convince skeptics. All the positive results in all the experiments all over the world for more than a century, thought about thousands of scientific minds, cannot be all possibly flawed or sloppy, this idea just seems not to be possible. The numbers are too great and the chance it is all incorrect or fraudulent seems to be hugely small to say the least. I suspect many of them in fact are flawed, incompetently made, frauded, data-selected and stuff, let alone some spotted problems with M.A. but still there´s a huge body of them that seems not (remember the ones Hyman agreed on being flawless and still produced way higher results than chance?).

There's no implication that all the researchers are fraudulent or incompetent. I think evaluation of paranormal research can and should be approached with the assumption that the researchers have the same sorts of biases and skills as researchers in any other scientific field.

Totally agreed. But my suspicion is that it is basically on the wrong track, I mean the scientific acceptance of the results, they are far more prone to reject psi´s sole existence by suggesting that there might be natural explanations rather than really wondering the plausible “why” behind the results. Again there are cases in which no further moaning about flaws are tenable, and still the rejection goes on and on. I remember the declaration from the PEAR staff: “if they do not believe in us after the results we´ve made then they will never do.” This is quite the feeling, sadly.

I think what you are referring to is what I mentioned earlier. While paranormal researchers who want to believe in paranormal effects interpret their results (quite reasonably) as supporting their paranormal framework, skeptics point out that the same results are consistent with a non-paranormal framework - i.e the pre-established scientific framework is sufficient to explain the same results.

Hmm, I cannot see it this way. Have they already done that? Did the skeptics proved that the pre-established framework is sufficient to explain the psi results? I can see they cogitating it. And as skeptics in general are not involved in psi researches, they assume a more than a little comforting position. They are not proving their point throuhg experiments, they simply state that and that seems to suffice for them. This is what I cannot agree, up till now. One skeptic I can recall that was involved in psi researches is Hyman, who did agree with a protocol with Honorton and then after the results were still way higher changed his mind and made more objections. So...again, what exactly is the point? It is about debunking and holding something from being accepted or what?

Therefore, what the skeptics mean is that it is nonsense to say that the paranormal has been proved.

Paranormal has not been proved nor positive nor negative because the scientific elite tend to mock it and in fact it is not useful for their progress, nor financial interests and intellectual prestiges. In other words, they do not fund it because the short-term interest is dubious to say the least. And besides that, gives the people who do research it a really hard time, PEAR is na example.

I don't think that assumption is correct. It looks to me like the difference between skeptics and believers is not that believers have had experiences that skeptics have not, and therefore lack an intuitive understanding. It is that skeptics and believers have placed different interpretations upon experiences both groups have shared.

The requirement for overwhelming evidence is a consequence of the success of naturalism/materialism. If everything we have investigated so far, even that which is initially inexplicable, has led to a natural explanation, the underlying assumption of naturalism (which is the philosophy that underlies science) has yet to be disproved. The strength of our confidence in the underlying assumption reflects that so far it has not been disproved despite plenty of opportunity. So if a natural explanation for a phenomenon has not been excluded, it is reasonable to assume that one could exist, even if we do not yet have enough information to determine (prove) the details of that explanation.

Locality/materialism/reductionism has recently failed greatly to explain nature Linda! At least like they expected it to do. The quantum measurement problem is a natural phenomena that implies that our current framework is wrong and or hugely incomplete. While the mechanical/materialistic framework was successful for some time after the Glorious Newton and Kepler, for example, you cannot save it for being ultimately labelled as incomplete and unconsistent with the current boundaries of nature experienced by human , be the spotted frontiers of space or the quantum world and the “cosmical tissue” of random fluctuations. Let me tell you something, everything is nature, everything is natural, every phenomenon is part of nature, even the delusions of mind. So I think materialism borrowing the word naturalism in order to make it stronger and therefore being the natural truth of the universe and nature seems more like highjacking than borrowing.
So not everything has led to “natural” (mean materialistic) explanations. And the current scientific framework has not to be disproved in order to embrace new phenomena and perhaps new kind of forces in nature. The scientific tool ought to be always one. How a new discovery could invalidate the power of predicting the orbit of planets of newtonian and keplerian mechanics? It is not plausible. The scientific framework has to adapt itself in order to embrace what is being observed, not the other way around. You know science is a human tool. It is known to be imperfect and incomplete therefore (like humans are, as we judge ourselves) , so why assume that is right trying to fit any new possible phenomena to it as it is right now? Science is about making useful constructs about the natural phenomena and not bending nature to fit to what we expect and do know up till now.

Your point about abstracting outside of the pre-established scientific framework is relevant to what I mentioned to you before. As your ideas become increasingly removed from the established framework, it becomes increasingly difficult to test your ideas in a meaningful manner because you begin to violate the underlying assumptions of hypothesis testing. You can do an experiment, but it is difficult to evaluate whether any conclusions are valid. It is analogous to dividing by zero in mathematics. You have essentially eliminated the possibility that you can find out whether they are right or wrong. Because the process of science revolves around the idea of testing, abstraction for the purposes of testing does not stray very far from the established framework. That does not mean that researchers are not capable of abstracting further, though.

You are attributing the adjective meaningful to na experiment if it has success on being fit to any currently accepted belief (i.e. theoretical framework and epistemology) , and again I insist that this might not be the tenable way of discovering something that is not necessarily physically causal. In other words, the causes are not physical ( at least from what we currently accept as physical). I agree that is not simple accepting psi, as we know and accept nature. It has to be done by defying all the objections and its probably false the idea that everything as it is established right now would have to be buried. Again , science is about man constructing useful ways of understanding, emulating and channeling the spotted forces and behaviours of nature in favour of his kind. If man has not yet accepted psi (which means, the scientific elite), it does not mean necessarily that one can say with certainty that it has not been shown to exist. It has failed to be fit to any current theory, but it´s not reasonable to say it has not been demonstrated, nor that they have proved that the possible natural causes are in fact generating the results. I think what can hinder one´s good will to accept psi, is the possible uses for it. If it´s so dim, what is the uses? Crimes cannot be solved by psychics because the effects are dim. I would not risk my money on a casino advised by a psychic because the probability of him being right is small and i´m risking my money. We cannot try to influence the physical world in order to solve our problems because the effects are dim, so what?
But still if it is dim and has no apparent uses nor short-term financial returns, it still exists. And the sole existence of something cannot be denied just because it is dim compared to what we are acostumed to accept within a materiallistic framework , and or it is not a potential money making machine for the industry.

Your last sentence refers to one of the most interesting aspects of these phenomena - how we use our intuition to test ideas. Unfortunately, it has unquestionably been demonstrated that intuition is not a reliable tool In fact, it can be wildly wrong, even when we have the sensation of absolute certainty. And research in this area suggests that the mind can spontaneously generate a sensation of certainty, just like it can spontaneously generate an image. So that sometimes the spontaneous generation of certainty may be part of the an overall experience that is solely a product of the mind, rather than external events (for example, sterotypical hypnagogic hallucinations). I agree that we have a lot to learn about the mind. And I agree that investigating these experiences is valuable. That more creativity is needed to design experiments than is needed to design experiments in physics doesn't make it not possible, though.

Well, I think we are approaching intuition from two different places. The intuition I talk about here is that feeling that you have when you finally understand something. Like a switch that is turned on. Like , yeeeeeeees now I got it all! A classical example of my life was when I was having a hard time to understand the logical constructs for programming and the structure of na algorythm. The teacher on the first classes explained and explained and ...hmmmmmmm still nothing made sense. Nothing at all, and then one day I was struggling with the exercises and then...CLICK, hell everything made sense, finally a piece of the puzzle was put in place in a manner that I understood the whole thing. Then I could tell you that I did understand intuitively how na algorythm works. I think this is one of the limits of communication and language. He could go on for his life explaining it to me, I could repeat and memorize the exercises and even make a good score on the test and I still do not understand it with that intuitive feeling, that is the essence of the communication he was trying to make. I think things are pretty much unexplainable and annatainable through communication only, it has to be achieved via insight. Words and communication are like dead symbols, they do nothing allone. Something is learned properly only when this intuitive switch is finally turned. It is so strange that it reminds me of a quantum leap. It is not at all, and then it IS completely with no possible intermediate states.
Another example is you trying to explain someone what is the taste of apple without offering it for the person to eat it. You could go on and on and on. That person could answer if asked how is the taste of apple with : “its like this and this and that” and still possess no intuitive knowledge of what exactly is the thing.
You approached intuition more like a guessing. Like...hhhmmmm something tells me that THIS is right. And right after the person realizes that it was not true. This can be dangerous , and mind is known to play many tricks, indeed. The level of awareness that I say people have when for example while OBE of on NDE is the current awareness i´m enjoying right now, being capable of making criticism, questioning things, and stuff like this, and all of this while they are there experiencing the mysterious “worlds”! In other words, people often says about being more aware than normal while there, and that the material world is less real than the world the person did experience there. Even the level of awareness of the waking state is weaker than the one they experience when they are “there”. So , this is why I mean people is convinced intuitively like they captive the essence of the claim: “hmmm so THIS is what they claimed about the “other side” , now I really know about it and it makes sense! Hell how could I not believe this, I was blind and hindered by the conditioning nature of my waking state of mind.” This, Linda is the general claim of the states of mind which involves trance and full awareness. And therefore the person intuitively is convinced that if that´s not real, the pysical world hardly is then. Psi claims are endorsed by this people intuitively also while on these experiences, and that´s from where the claims of clairvoyance, telepathy, ability to see what is in the other room while clinically dead come from. Many of them are verifiable and in fact was verified. Even Susan Blackmore seems to agree with this based on what I read from her works on OBE and her NDE while stoned on marijuana. She wrote very clearly about the amazing level of awareness of the experience and her successful ability to count the number of fingers her friend was holding up while she was out of body, although she states it was not documented unfortunately. I honestly cannot up till now refute all of this, it would not be sincere of my part. I´m yet to face arguments that could crumble everything man made to try explaining the phenomena for the people who cannot accept it. Sorry , this discussion is becoming overly-philosophical I think but sometimes I cannot resist.

Can you provide an example of a hit from Rosemary Altea that was beyond normal comprehension?

Hmm that one on Larry King´s show that she made a hit about the exact description of the dead person, and said even that in fact the person was planting two rosebushes the day he died and not one, like the caller said to Altea. Holy cow, I have to admit that the only natural explanation for this would be fraud! Altea may have set up with this person that if she manage to get her call on live, Altea would in fact produce this amazing hit, as arranged. I cannot believe that Altea is so skilled in fishing and cold reading. I cannot understand how cold-reading should be responsible for this specific hit. A pertinent question here is, whether Randi consider it a hit to his standards oir not. He stated that this was fishing for information, and that´s all he said. So we can pretty much conclude that if Altea was being on the million dollar show, and did produce this hit, he would have not face it as a hit, and so what could be a hit? Her guessing the exact name, middle name, blood-type, zenner card that the person had in his pocket, number of birthmarks in the left leg? Precise size of the foot? He could raise the stakes as he wish to disprove Altea´s hits, but would it be tenable and unbiased? Hardly.

The claim that these powers are dim is often raised, but an effect so dim that it cannot be demonstrated under reasonable conditions would also be too dim to ever be detected under normal conditions. The "noise" of everyday conditions would only serve to obscure the effect, not to enhance it. If you test it under conditions where you have attempted to remove as much of the "noise" as possible, and even then you cannot see the effect, how can you possibly expect to have seen it when it was surrounded by "noise"?

But it did not happen did it? Speaking again of the experiments, I thought Hyman have agreed on the design and still the results were waaay higher than chance. So what is the complain about the results afterall?

The problem with these claims is that they are indistinguishable from non-paranormal methods. If the results that you get when you invoke the paranormal are indistinguishable from results obtained by invoking non-paranormal methods, what conclusions do you think you can be drawn?
If researchers perform experiments that allow the effects of bias to influence the results, and the results are no different from what one would expect if bias influenced the results, how can we ignore bias?

But you are assuming that things are like that, and in fact I canot see taht it has happen. Which was the non-paranormal methods that explained the claims and results in general? I think they hypothesized about possible although dubious alternative explanations.

If they perform experiments that violate some of the assumptions of hypothesis testing, thereby making it impossible to draw valid conclusions, how can we justify reaching any conclusion?

But you are speaking about fitting psi to any known theory or just accpeting some new phenomenon is going on even if it is unexplainable?

What skeptics are saying is that the results presented to us are essentially indistinguishable from what we'd expect to see from normal variation, systematic flaws, and the same kinds of biases, incompetence and occasional fraud we see in any other field of research. We apply those same criteria to all other fields. The difference is that there is something left over, when you take all that into account, in those other fields.

Like I said before, there is no and there will never be a flawless experiment. Even in the medical field. I guess the medical industtry in general do not work out every alternative explanation of the observed results in order to put something on the market. Another point is that I cannot spot whether they proved that the results are indistinguishable from what we might expected if we eliminate every possible flaw.

The placebo effect is a misnomer, in that it is not a specific effect that the mind is having on the body. Rather it is mostly a combination of statistical artefact/bias (e.g. regression) and subjective perception (which I suppose you could characterize as mind-over-mind).

So the placebo effect as being the effect of the patient just thinking of being treated with the medicine in fact producing minor healing is currently proved to be wrong and the apparent effect is due to experiment flaws and bias? I really want to know more about it, if you should explain it to me I would be happy.

I don't think so. This issue is not unique to paranormal research. I'm saying that you can usually choose a variety of different ways to analyze and manipulate the data after an experiment. And after you have put a lot of time and effort into something, it is tempting to try a bunch of different methods and choose the one that looks the best, when presenting the results of your research. If you have truly measured an effect, the results of different analyses should be fairly robust - i.e. the effect is demonstrated even if the methods of analyses differ. If demonstrating an effect is dependent upon how you are manipulating the data, then you should justify your use of that particular method over the other available methods.

I still do not get it, if you are trying to say that in fact the other methods should also produce good results or not. Anyway if something was suceeded in that method they chose and that method is scientifically and statistically na acceptable one , it is the case of trying to disprove it by applying some others that produce dim or no results?

Something still bothers me about the why none would review and publish their findings. If the flaws are so obvious why not bother to debunk it once and for all in a prestiged journal? I cannot see why not.

 

[Kage]

Can you talk briefly about the experiment you and your fiend participated in? What parts of the experiment procedures were hidden from you and your friend? Also, was your major in science or engineering like your friend?

Hi all.

I graduated (barely it seems) with a degree in physics last year. I participated in this experiment spring semester '05. In correspondence with the Amazing Randi himself I was bluntly shown my lack of knowledge of the protocols of the experiment in which I was a subject, but I will describe the experiment from my perspective as a subject:

• Each subject selected two pictures, one "positive" (mine was a kitten) and one "negative" (mine was WTC2's collapse). We were asked to rank our feelings on the pictures and on woo itself.
• We were told that a small white box contained a random number generator that would change the picture on a computer screen. The picture was a random mix of the "positive" image and the "negative" picture and the mix would be changed depending on the output of the random number generator.
• We were told to try to make or "positive" picture appear in the random mess, or come forward, or whatever.

The computer had two important bits of information that I found suspicious. It knew which were the "positive" pictures and which were the "negative" pictures and if the subject was male or female. The results (which I don't have) losely said that women had better "performance" than men, though women also had some of the worst performers in the test as well. A simple test for problems with the equipment would have been to repeat the experiment yet give the opposite answer (or random answers) to the questions about which was the "positive" picture or what the sex of the subject is. This test is not easy for students (getting 40 friends to do this was a tough task). Since the code and hardware used in the experiment was provided by PEAR itself I find the results suspect, but I personally think that the main problem with PEAR lab tests is the way they handle their data.

So, they never published their procedures?!?

Am I correct in assuming that in peer-reviewed studies, procedures are revealed? (I know that PEAR was not peer-reviewed.)

I am not qualified to speak about the peer review process, but I can suply the links from which I gleaned my knowledge on PEAR's behavior:

http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-04/042806boots.html
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

I'm still a little hazy on whether it's likely that PEAR was only loosely affiliated with Princeton University and exactly what that means. It seems to me that both the Lab and the University would make their status clear, and it also seems that their relationship was public and emphasized in several ways as noted in the other thread. By comparison SRI's web site (Stanford Research International, formerly Stanford Research Institute) makes it clear that they have been unaffiliated with Stanford University since 1970. Since you are a graduate of Princeton, perhaps you have some insider's knowledge that can shed some light on this?

I talked about PEAR with my writing seminar teacher freshmen year (My seminar was on consciousness and I loved it) and with some students and teachers in the engineering department. The general outlook on PEAR lab seemed to be that they were very willing to talk to students and that the work they did was "interesting" but that they were most likely cooks. As you say, they have a P in their name and that associates their work with my university.

Also, as an insider, would you happen to be able to shed any light on this statement in the OP's link?

Not really. I'm not that much of an insider when it comes to PEAR's relationship with the university.

I hope this helps. I'll answer any questions to the best of my ability, but I'm not here to defend PEAR (I will stand up for my friend however). I participated in this to help her out and because I believe that scepticism requires a willingness to examine this stuff for yourself (while funding it as minimally as possible).

 

[T'ai Chi]

Be clear, T'ai... are you saying that if someone passes the challenge that JREF will refuse to pay because "it's not paranormal"?

For anyone capable of processing English and logic, I was clear:

any challenge that applies to paranormal things would fail to apply by definition if one admits that once paranormal things happen they become normal, since normal is not paranormal.

If the money is paid out, which I believe would be, it wouldn't change that fact. The money is irrelvant to the logic. $X paid out, where X is any amount, wouldn't change the logic that normal is not paranormal. So do you still fail to understand why money as a carrot is irrelevant?

 

[T'ai Chi]

All those thinking Randi is a fraud... have you ever considered that if you wanted to discredit him, the very best thing you could do would be to succeed at the challenge and then let the whole world see him weasel out of it? Wouldn't that be worth it?

For those that think anyone is a fraud, the best route is to report them to the proper authorities.

As far as 'discredit', I doubt people think like many in the skeptical movement do and therefore don't have 'discredit'-ing others as their goal. They'd rather practice responsible skepticism and actually examine claims, not personalities.

Probably the best way to tell someone off, if that is your goal, is to simply ignore them; to fail to treat their ideas as serious, as worthty of a serious reply.

It has worked with many here to be sure.

 

[Zep]

I talked about PEAR with my writing seminar teacher freshmen year (My seminar was on consciousness and I loved it) and with some students and teachers in the engineering department. The general outlook on PEAR lab seemed to be that they were very willing to talk to students and that the work they did was "interesting" but that they were most likely cooks. As you say, they have a P in their name and that associates their work with my university.

I suspect you mean "kooks" as in nutters, not chefs.

 

[Kage]

I suspect you mean "kooks" as in nutters, not chefs.

Indeed. I hold chefs and cooks in high regard. Not so much with kooks.

 

[Zep]

Omegablue and CJ,

Here's how PEAR ran their experiments. Consider a trivially simple mind experiment:

1) Put two cups of water in a box that no-one can see inside of.
2) Have a test subject "think" the water gone out of one cup, then back again.
3) Look in the box again and rejoice that it succeeded.
4) Speculate ad nauseum on how it was accomplished.
5) Do incredible amounts of valid detailed statistics that show a high correlation between subject's claimed ability and the results.
6) Repeat MANY times.

See if you can spot the obvious problems with respect to "experiment design", "data", "results", "evidence", "proof", and "believability".