Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[Zep]

I haven't had time to read this entire thread, so apologies if this has been covered already. Just wanted to point out that PEAR has published some 'results' in the auspicious "Journal of Scientific Exploration' (Vol 17, No 2 pp 207-241, 2003)

Here are some gems mined from the above publication:

"Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies,
replication, enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive."

"the remote perception process qualifies as an example of a ‘‘sensitive nonlinear system with a weak fluctuating signal’’ that exhibits a certain degree of chaos, and that the participants in these experiments function
as ‘‘two otherwise independent random oscillators.’’"

"Insights can also be derived from a quite different realm of human experience, namely, the practice of certain mystical divinatory traditions where anomalous relationships between signal and noise are also evident."

"Another ancient oracle, still widely used, is the Chinese ‘‘Book of Changes,’’
or I Ching, a divination process that involves generation of a sequence of
random binary events, the results of which are represented as two ‘‘trigrams.’’
These are referred to a table, or matrix, that identifies each of the 64 possible
combinations, or ‘‘hexagrams,’’ with a specific text that is then consulted to
obtain a response to the original query. Notwithstanding the subjective nature of the interpretation of the texts, a vast body of evidence accumulated over many millennia testifies to the efficacy of the I Ching in producing accurate and consequential results."

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf

Go to www.skepticreport.com and look up "Shapes In The Clouds" from the archive. It comments on exactly this PEAR report.

 

[CFLarsen]

Basically i´m pretty skeptical that it could be just cold reading. Fraud would be more suitable I think. Still i´m not sure while the skeptics are sure that it is because of cold reading, so where is the proof? Sorry about that.

If I was Larsen I would say to you:

Is there any evidence to support this claim? Present your case and i´ll take a look. Put up or shut up.

hhahaa but I´ll simply ask if you can back up this claim with some good one.

You brought up the Altea example, which was shown to be cold reading. There's plenty of stuff on cold reading:

11 Techniques To Talk To The Dead, Part 1
Analysis of Transcript Excerpts of James Van Praagh (JVP) "readings" done on the "Larry King Live" show.

11 Techniques To Talk To The Dead, Part 2
Continuing examination of techniques possibly used by "psychic mediums" in their performances, this time of 19 of John Edward "readings" done on the "Larry King Live" show.

11 Techniques To Talk To The Dead, Part 3
Continuing examination of techniques possibly used by "psychic mediums" in their performances, this time of some of Sylvia Browne's "readings" done on the "Larry King Live" show.

Graham Bishop: One Lousy Cold Reader
Graham Bishop is a self-proclaimed "spiritual teacher, trance medium, trance healer and medium". He is also one lousy cold reader.

Great Hits & Misses Of Psychic John Edward
A collection of some of the greatest hits and spectacular misses of this television psychic.

How John Edward Got Two "Special Hits"
One of the most frequent arguments heard from believers in psychic medium John Edward is that he is real because he gets those "special hits": A lot of precise information, seemingly from out of the blue, which he did not get from the cold-reading techniques he usually employs.

Talking The John Edward Blues
John Edward is a supposed psychic who has written best selling books and has a syndicated TV show of his own: Crossing Over with John Edward. An analysis of his readings show that he is using cold reading techniques.

Medium Terry Evans
Terry Evans is mainly known in Sweden for his participation as a medium in the programs "A Sense of Murder". This is a transcript of one of his seances. There is absolutely no evidence of spirit communication. There is, however, ample evidence of cold reading techniques.

Dead Man's Hand: Playing the Game of Cold Reading
How many times have you been asked to explain cold reading? How well have you done? Maybe talking to dead people is very much like playing professional poker.

Cold Reading: Confessions Of A Psychic
A diligent channel surfer should notice a new trend in TV talk shows: psychic guests supposedly channeling the dead relatives of audience members, often conveying information they could not possibly have known in advance. Can psychics really divine the future by speaking to the dead, or do they, as skeptics insist, just use an old magician's parlour trick called "cold reading"?

Read those and tell me where Altea is not cold reading. Or any other psychic.

Another quick point:

Why Randi is credited to state that Geller is a hoax? Because he knows the tricks. I cannot say Geller is a hoax because I suck at doing tricks. I mean, if someone point out that Altea is a hoax, then they fit to any of the following categories:

- They trust people who do possess the same or more abilities than her (like Randi);
- They themselves knows all the secrets behind Altea´s tricks by being capable themselves of reproducing it.

I'm not a spoonbender, and not a magician, but even I can show how Geller does it:

Uri Geller & Spoonbending: How He Really Does It
The one thing Uri Geller is known for is his spoon-bending trick. Even though he has given it up, it still is his tour-de-force. No cutlery is safe, when Uri's in town!

Am I wrong in my analysis?

 

[Mr. Scott]

PEAR Review

Go to www.skepticreport.com and look up "Shapes In The Clouds" from the archive. It comments on exactly this PEAR report.

This is a really good summary of 25 years of PEAR work. I recommend heartily that omegablue read it and share with us his reactions.

Here's a more direct link to the article Shapes in the Clouds.

 

[fls]

Another quick point:

Why Randi is credited to state that Geller is a hoax? Because he knows the tricks. I cannot say Geller is a hoax because I suck at doing tricks. I mean, if someone point out that Altea is a hoax, then they fit to any of the following categories:

- They trust people who do possess the same or more abilities than her (like Randi);
- They themselves knows all the secrets behind Altea´s tricks by being capable themselves of reproducing it.

As a curiosity. Any good links on Randi scaring people with his cold reading techniques?

I do not understand why you think that one has to be able to personally reproduce something in order to understand the explanation of how it is produced by someone else.

I suggest you take Claus' advice and educate yourself on the subject, rather than asking me for a demonstration (I don't have experience with cold-reading).

Linda

 

[Rrose Selavy]

BBC reports closing

Many scientists have been dismissive of the Princeton University-based unit.
A typical PEAR experiment had a person sitting in front of an electric box which flashed numbers just above or below 100.
The participant would be told to "think high" or "think low" as they watched the display.
Researchers concluded that people could alter the results in such machines about two or three times out of 10,000. PEAR says such effects could be "functionally devastating" for people working in aircraft cockpits, surgical facilities and even ICBM missile silos.

"Venues that appear to be particularly conducive to such field anomalies include small intimate groups, group rituals, sacred sites, musical and theatrical performances, and other charismatic events," it adds.
Mr Jahn, former dean of Princeton's engineering school and an emeritus professor, told the New York Times: "For 28 year, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data. "If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will."

"It's been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton," Robert Park, a University of Maryland physicist, told the NYT. "Science has a substantial amount of credibility, but this is the kind of thing that squanders it."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6353941.stm

 

[ponderingturtle]

Um,.... I don't know what physicists you talk to, but "experimental proof" comes up all the time among the ones that I talk to. For example, the SuperKamiokande has provided "experimental proof" of the non-zero mass of neutrinos, and this paper specifically refers to the experimental evidence as "proof," down to the title.

Most of the physicists with whom I am familiar have no problem referring to the numbers that come out of CERN or SLAC as "proof" of various experimental hypotheses, despite the fact that they're nothing of the sort -- and they even regard the areas in which they disagree with accepted theories as "disproof" of the theory, despite the abstract possibiliity that their numbers might be entirely in error.

You're demanding that cj be held to higher standards of scientific writing than scientists themselves use. That's at best hypocritical and at worst downright rude....

And so they also refer to highly suspect data as "evidence", as CJ is doing as well?

This will make it great when things that have been proven then get disproven at a latter date as well.

 

[Moochie]

Omegablue wrote:

Basically i´m pretty skeptical that it could be just cold reading.

Perhaps it's because you haven't had your "A-ha!" moment yet...

fls wrote:

See post #158

Thanks for your excellent post, fls. As usual, it was well written and helpful in explaining a complex subject so that even a layperson can understand.

CardZeus wrote:

See post #178

A very good example of the "depth" of the PEAR lab's "science."

Also, Thank you, Philip, for that NPR link.

M.

 

[omegablue]

You brought up the Altea example, which was shown to be cold reading. There's plenty of stuff on cold reading:

Read those and tell me where Altea is not cold reading. Or any other psychic.

I'm not a spoonbender, and not a magician, but even I can show how Geller does it:

Am I wrong in my analysis?

I read those and I cannot tell you whether Altea uses this or not, based on the general claim of your articles. Words , just words and assumptions and opinions. A throng of cheaters may well (although i´m not sure) use some of this tricks. But where is the proof? Any evidence? Put up or shut up. (lol, I admit that this is a cool thing to say)

 

[thaiboxerken]

sure, talk Rosemary into taking the same test proposed to Sylvia.

did you see the Penn and Teller episode with Rosemary? the same show featured a skeptic doing cold-reading and the audience was fooled.

 

[omegablue]

Omegablue wrote:


Perhaps it's because you haven't had your "A-ha!" moment yet...

Pretthy much like this, friend!

 

[omegablue]

sure, talk Rosemary into taking the same test proposed to Sylvia.

did you see the Penn and Teller episode with Rosemary? the same show featured a skeptic doing cold-reading and the audience was fooled.

Ah that would be nice but i´m afraid I have no access at all to Pen & Teller here in my country.

I wanted to check if the audience was fooled like they were with Rosemary. And which criteria was used to compare the level of "fooling".

 

[omegablue]

I do not understand why you think that one has to be able to personally reproduce something in order to understand the explanation of how it is produced by someone else.

I suggest you take Claus' advice and educate yourself on the subject, rather than asking me for a demonstration (I don't have experience with cold-reading).

Linda

You are relying too much on Larsen´s opinions I think. You are as well using this to strengthen your points, and in fact it does not. So again, where is the evidence?

Sorry, in fact i´m still owing you some answers from your previous post, which i´ll work on later tonight.

regards

 

[CFLarsen]

I read those and I cannot tell you whether Altea uses this or not, based on the general claim of your articles. Words , just words and assumptions and opinions. A throng of cheaters may well (although i´m not sure) use some of this tricks. But where is the proof? Any evidence? Put up or shut up. (lol, I admit that this is a cool thing to say)

What part of Altea's reading do you think is not cold reading?

 

[omegablue]

What part of Altea's reading do you think is not cold reading?

its not a matter of what specific part i´m not convinced and etc etc...

Basically , I may well be wrong, what I´ve read from cold reading (your articles, Todd Carrol´s articles and others) could not convince me that in fact some cold reader could perform as well as Altea.

But speaking of that small part I think it´s the most intriguing will be "two rosebushes and not one." But in fact I cannot find any evidence that these psychics (Altea or Browne) were debunked bcause cold reader X demonstrated he can fool others with "amazing hits". Sylvia may well have been uncovered with these latests scandals and exposes, but let´s focus on Altea right now.

 

[CFLarsen]

its not a matter of what specific part i´m not convinced and etc etc...

Basically , I may well be wrong, what I´ve read from cold reading (your articles, Todd Carrol´s articles and others) could not convince me that in fact some cold reader could perform as well as Altea.

But speaking of that small part I think it´s the most intriguing will be "two rosebushes and not one." But in fact I cannot find any evidence that these psychics (Altea or Browne) were debunked bcause cold reader X demonstrated he can fool others with "amazing hits". Sylvia may well have been uncovered with these latests scandals and exposes, but let´s focus on Altea right now.

Yes, it does matter what specific part you are not convinced is cold reading. Because that's what you pointed to as something that you found could only be fraud:

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.

Those were your exact words. It had to be fraud, you could not understand how this could be cold reading.

Let's take a look at what you thought Altea was saying:

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.

Let's take a look at what Altea really said:

ALTEA: May I just say there -- you mentioned a rosebush, and he holds up his hand and tells me that there were two special rosebushes. You only mentioned one, and he tells me that there were two.

You see the difference? Nowhere does Altea say anything about the person planting two rosebushes. All she said was that she was told there were two.

That's how cold reading works: Altea doesn't make the hit, you do. You connect the dots for her.

Now, I've explained the rosebushes in the walk-through of the transcript. Do you still think that the rosebushes hit cannot be cold reading?

 

[fls]

You are relying too much on Larsen´s opinions I think.

My opinion has nothing to do with Larsen's. I knew about cold reading long before it came up in this thread.

You are as well using this to strengthen your points, and in fact it does not. So again, where is the evidence?

You implied that her reading was evidence of the paranormal because it would be extremely unlikely that she could have guessed these things without an anomalous information source.

I went through point by point and showed that she made correct and incorrect statements. Her correct statements were actually likely to be correct, except for one which was unlikely but not particularly remarkable. No anomalous information source would be necessary to come up with the information, therefore it isn't evidence of psi.

What evidence are you looking for?

Did you read the links Claus provided?

Linda

 

[thaiboxerken]

Basically , I may well be wrong, what I´ve read from cold reading (your articles, Todd Carrol´s articles and others) could not convince me that in fact some cold reader could perform as well as Altea.

Penn&Teller Has shown that cold readers have done just that, twice that I know of.

 

[cj.23]

Rather than pursue my silly semantic point - I have not really been paying much attention to the main discussion, but I am personally a fairly accomplished cold reader. I have never read anything significantly detailed published on "how to" and am self taught, but on a one on one I am able to perform quite well with people whose cultures and subcultures i am familiar with.

However I have an alternative theory for much theatrical mediumship. At first I thought - numbers game! Throw out enough and it is likely someone will pick up on it.

Now I want to try and very simple experiment: ask the people who were given readings in the car park, some time after the actual reading, in public, how much was true. My limited tests suggest a lot of people just go along with it because they have the spotlight on them, but questioned afterwards express doubts and admit to having confirmed stuff which simply was not true.

The fraud is not actually perpetrated by the psychic, but by their subject, who is trying to play the "game". Many psychics then may even genuinely come to believe in their own powers?

Maybe I'm just cynical.

EDIT: I'm not sure this has much bearing either way on PEAR, or even the truth of the mediumistic hypothesis though!
cj x

 

[Kaylee]

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.

I think that would have been a very clever way of testing the code, without scrutinizing it line by line. I'm sorry you weren't given the opportunity to do so.

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/

Thanks for the links.
This is from one of the Swift issues you referred me to:

http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#7
Swift May 20, 2005

When Drs. Ray Hyman and James Alcock considered looking into the PEAR procedures, they were welcomed by Program Director Dr. Robert Jahn, who told them they could perform any tests at the lab that they wished. Hyman and Alcock declined the offer when Ms. Dunne informed them that if they did so, their data would be subject to anonymity — not labeled as theirs — and mixed in with all the rest. As well, they would be forbidden to publish it. This seemed — and still seems — like a strange and limiting element, thus their loss of interest in using the lab.

Emphasis mine.

I think that was unprofessional -- to put it very mildly. How can anyone determine the results of their experiments if they can't look at its output? This is a devious way to deny people access. It is in fact saying "no" while deviously trying to sound like you are saying "yes". The PEAR lab must have had the capability to allow people to see their results; otherwise they would not have been able to claim, for example, that women's results varied more widely than men's, but on the whole did better.

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.

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.

Talk without real access to an experiment's results and a full disclosure of what hardware and software code were being used is not worth much IMHO. IANAS (I am not a scientist), but it also seems to me to be a perversion of the scientific method.

After thinking about it, I think the relationship between Princeton University and PEAR was stronger than that of landlord and tenant. At least two other universities have separated themselves from labs they have founded, and AFAIK, the general public is not confused and does not believe that there is a current relationship between these universities and the labs. I am speaking about Stanford University and SRI, and Duke University and Rhine Research Center. Princeton University and PEAR didn't make the same efforts, so I would have to say that there is a definite connection between the two organizations. I think it was irresponsible of Princeton to be affiliated with scientists that would not cooperate in good faith with other scientists who attempted to replicate their findings. That to me is the real problem, not the area in which they chose to study.

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).

Yes it helped Kage, thanks! And don't worry, it's very clear that you are not defending PEAR! I partially agree with you about what skepticism means except that I do think it would be OK to fund this type of research as long as the scientists involved were willing to provide full disclosure on their procedures and to provide the information necessary so that others who want to attempt to replicate their claimed results can do so.

 

[Expression_man]

The fraud is not actually perpetrated by the psychic, but by their subject, who is trying to play the "game". Many psychics then may even genuinely come to believe in their own powers?

It's understandable though. If someone were to believe that they were receiving communication from a deceased acquaintance then it's only natural that they'd make the effort to try and understand what's being said. That is to say they would take it seriously enough to suspend disbelief and perhaps go a step too far in making loose connections (where are the boundaries).

All that matters in such a case, as far as verifying the phenomena is concerned, involves getting solid and specific pieces of information with nothing to go on other than the yes/no responses of the person being given the message.

I don't doubt that some mediums engage in cold reading, even Mrs Stokes (deceased) admitted that when unable to hear voices, during the early stage of her career, she would enagage in cold reading so as to save face. She even went so far as to give detail of her methods. After that "phase", she claimed to truthfully state whether or not "anything was coming through". She talks, a lot, about being influenced by her own success/conceit early on (autobiography) and coming to terms with it.