Princeton Nukes ESP Department

[Kaylee]

I've put PEAR lab as a possible topic for mythbusters to tackle on their message boards:
[URL]http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...6/m/2771958968[/URL]

That's great! I don't know if the hosts of Mythbusters normally do this but it would also be great if they could verify on their show that:

• No one has succeeded in replicating what PEAR claimed they could do.
• PEAR never published their procedures.
• PEAR despite "inviting" people to use their lab - never actually gave anyone access to their experiment's results, but would add them in anonymosly to their database. Only the PEAR managers had access to each experiment's result and they would not share this information -- just the results as they had chosen to calculate and as they had chosen to select. (I am assuming that they did have access to each experiment's results, because otherwise how could they have claimed results varied based on gender?)

It really bothers me that the mass media doesn't stress this, in fact AFAIK, they don’t' even mention it.

Also, shortly after you posted at Mythbusters someone posted this:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear][/url]
The observed effects are usually quite small, of the order of a few parts in ten thousand on average, but they compound to highly significant statistical deviations from chance expectations.

In other words, they're taking the tiny deviations from ideal statistics which are always observed in real world experiments, adding them, and calling them significant now that they're bigger. This is fundamentally flawed. Instead, they should re-calculating the statistics using the larger sample size.

I can't help but notice that the site is very long on rhetoric, yet extremely scant on actual data or results.
…

Emphasis mine.



Even based on the tiny bit of knowledge that I have in statistics, I know that this is just plain wrong.

 

[Kaylee]

"I don’t believe in anything Bob is doing, but I support his right to do it," said Will Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton.

I strongly disagree with Professor Happer. It was wrong for Princeton University to support Jahn's policy of not making his procedures publicly available. If Princeton truly valued their reputation, it was their duty to see that all claims made by Jahn were followed up by his full cooperation to anyone requesting information needed to replicate his lab's results.

 

[Kaylee]

Jahn and Dunne to Continue Studies at ICRL

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/future.html

At the end of Februrary, PEAR will be concluding its experimental operations at Princeton University. Therefore, we will be shifting our base of operations to the International Consciousness Research Laboratories, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Click here: http://www.icrl.org/officers.php
and you can see that the Chairman and President of ICRL are Jahn and Dunne, from PEAR.

 

[Kaylee]

ETA: The PEAR site provides a link to the following site: http://www.psyleron.com/info/products/


Harness the Power of Intention

The Psyleron REG-1 package is your gateway to the exploration of direct mind and matter effects. The package includes the only PEAR certified Random Event Generator, a USB Cable, Software, and the "Psyleron Basics" training manual. The included software will allow you to explore the way that your mind affects your ability to achieve outcomes related to your goals. It will cause you to confront the way that your attitudes, feelings, and beliefs influence your ability to affect the world around you. The package also contains our FieldREG software, which allows you to measure the influences of consciousness at various events in your life. Run it during business meetings, parties, or group discussions and retreats to see if your group is affecting the physical world. Our package also gives you a life-time membership to the Psyleron online community, where you can download updates, share your data and experiences with others, and much more.

Price: $379*

*Student discount available

CardZeus, I couldn't find where the link was on the PEAR web site -- can you post the web site page where you found the link? TIA

So, does this count as a published release of PEAR's lab procedures and software?

 

[omegablue]

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?

You did not explain but rather offered a possible way she could have done that. Oh come on Larsen, you´re the one of the most radical skeptics regarding asking for evidence. So, by not offering me evidence the way you always ask me to do, even if i´m not so sure of what i´m suggesting as you are when you say this IS cold reading, I have to pretty much conclude that you are falling on the pitfalls of your own artifices.

 

[omegablue]

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

I´m saying that you´re relying too much on those opinions listed by Larsen, the links to his website. IS that 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.

Well, I did not say I was convinced by her hit, that in fact she was paranormal. I did say that this was intriguing, and the paranormal hypothesis in anyway was debunked by Randi that simply denying and claiming that it was cold reading. Cold reading may well exist, and in fact i think it does indeed. But I would love to find myself which are the limits of this technique, if it has any! Because if people can do this like Altea does just by cold reading, well,... i would be amazed to say the least.

I knew these techniques but not with this name, here in my country we know many of these cheaters who use psychology tricks to fish for information, like tarot readers in general. So ok, this is cold reading. But , which are the limits of this technique?

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.

You are 100% correct that it is not evidence for paranormal, and anywhere I stated on the contrary. I´ve came up with this to illustrate a wrong approach of suggesting something was debunked. In other words, Randi did not debunk her in this occasion. And the natural causes behind the effects , although spotted as possible of being behind it, were not proved to be in fact, the causes of the hit.

What evidence are you looking for?

Evidence that cold reading could do that. Hell why Randi did not try demonstrating this on that show.

Did you read the links Claus provided?

Course i did, but got disappointed it was only opinions. Nice points, mixed with average points , and some weak points IMHO.

 

[Garrette]

You did not explain but rather offered a possible way she could have done that. Oh come on Larsen, you´re the one of the most radical skeptics regarding asking for evidence. So, by not offering me evidence the way you always ask me to do, even if i´m not so sure of what i´m suggesting as you are when you say this IS cold reading, I have to pretty much conclude that you are falling on the pitfalls of your own artifices.

Try this.

 

[CFLarsen]

You did not explain but rather offered a possible way she could have done that. Oh come on Larsen, you´re the one of the most radical skeptics regarding asking for evidence. So, by not offering me evidence the way you always ask me to do, even if i´m not so sure of what i´m suggesting as you are when you say this IS cold reading, I have to pretty much conclude that you are falling on the pitfalls of your own artifices.

Wait, wait, wait. Listen.

Listen.

I gave you an explanation, which you admit is a possible way of explaining how she could have done that.

So, the method Altea used can be explained by cold reading.

When you brought up this example, you couldn't imagine how it could be cold reading.

Now you can.

So far, so good.

Here is where it gets interesting. Because, omegablue, this is where you have the opportunity not to cross the border from foolishness to fraud.

You see, we get the following behavior all the time: Believers come here with their examples of paranormalcy, and declare that they simply can't imagine how this can have natural explanations.

So, we show them.

And then, something peculiar almost always happen: They reject the natural explanations, in favor of the paranormal ones. Despite their expressed desire to know if there are natural explanations, they don't want them, once they hear them.

They have crossed the line from foolishness to fraud. First, it is foolishness, mainly because they aren't aware of the explanations. But then, it is fraud, because they know that there are natural explanations, they just refuse to acknowledge them.

The former is simple ignorance, the latter is a willful act of self-deceit. The latter almost always happens. Almost. Only those who are interested in the truth do not cross the line.

Are you a fraud or not, omegablue?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Try this.

He'll dismiss or ignore it, just like the fact that P&T had someone else do it on the BS show, the same episode where they caught Altea cheating.

 

[Garrette]

He'll dismiss or ignore it, just like the fact that P&T had someone else do it on the BS show, the same episode where they caught Altea cheating.

Then Claus will be right. Fool to fraud.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then Claus will be right. Fool to fraud.

I usually am. But this time, I hope I'm not.

 

[omegablue]

So, the method Altea used can be explained by cold reading.

AAhh so now is admitedly just an explanation, and not serious debunking...so far so good then! Still, where is the evidence?

When you brought up this example, you couldn't imagine how it could be cold reading.

Now you can.

So far, so good.

Hmmm I can imagine but my imagination often plays tricks on me you know. I need evidence, exposing, serious and honest debunking. Ok, i´m admitting my ignorance in knowledge about episodes of exposing frauds. I do not spend my lifetime here on the forums nor investigating it. Now i´m doing this for a little time, and I´m quite open for a mind changing. You may face me as an opponent because I decided to advocate a little in favor of not accepting the generally known explanations skeptics are satisfied in order to dismiss paranormal and psi. Up till now many good points were raised, mostly by fls, a few in your own website and from other posters. But believe me (you don´t of course, you think i´m a woo) but I´m clever enough to decide for myself without being influenced by dogmas of any kind, be it religious, or materialistic. Although not completely, mostly satisfactorily, I mean. At least I try and do not subscribe myself to any cause (Randi-like skepticism, faithful believing on new age crap) or other things than my personal freedom of exploration and judgement. When something appears to make much much sense for me , is time to become skeptical as philosophically speaking, no thing in nature is quite exact, specially speaking of human judgement, opinions, and man-made things like science. This is quite my motto right now. I had changed my mind many times, and like I said I´m open for that happening again. And in anyways i´m ashamed of that.

Here is where it gets interesting. Because, omegablue, this is where you have the opportunity not to cross the border from foolishness to fraud.


You see, we get the following behavior all the time: Believers come here with their examples of paranormalcy, and declare that they simply can't imagine how this can have natural explanations.

So, we show them.

And then, something peculiar almost always happen: They reject the natural explanations, in favor of the paranormal ones. Despite their expressed desire to know if there are natural explanations, they don't want them, once they hear them.

They have crossed the line from foolishness to fraud. First, it is foolishness, mainly because they aren't aware of the explanations. But then, it is fraud, because they know that there are natural explanations, they just refuse to acknowledge them.

The former is simple ignorance, the latter is a willful act of self-deceit. The latter almost always happens. Almost. Only those who are interested in the truth do not cross the line.

That´s at the very least, the way you (in your humble opinion) think about it. You generalize and force all kinds of characters who do appear over here who do not agree with you to fit into these two categories. Anyway, they are always wrong!! Aren´t you too sure of this? Isn´t it too complex for drawing such shallow and why not stupid conclusions like those? I think is not tenable doing this, although you are free to do this. Fine by me then.

Are you a fraud or not, omegablue?

And when I think you are making a good point you ruin it all with craps like that. Are you really suggesting that you always show the "believers" the "Noble Way to the Light of Intelectual Brilliance" and many of them just choose being a fraud over being plainly ignorant? In other words, those who do not agree with you or could not be convinced by your arguments are either simply idiots or frauds? Now this is just too much for me to accept for free. I think this statement of yours was very sure and clear, so... Evidence? Put up or shut up D).

I´m becoming overly skeptical over you as you commit more and more serious intellectual blunders like this one. In a word... BIAS ... all the way

 

[fls]

I´m saying that you´re relying too much on those opinions listed by Larsen, the links to his website. IS that evidence?

I didn't rely on the opinions listed by Larsen at all. I didn't read any of them before I went through my analysis of Rosemary's reading, and I only briefly scanned a few afterwards to confirm that they would provide an introduction to cold-reading for someone who was unfamiliar with it.

Well, I did not say I was convinced by her hit, that in fact she was paranormal. I did say that this was intriguing, and the paranormal hypothesis in anyway was debunked by Randi that simply denying and claiming that it was cold reading. Cold reading may well exist, and in fact i think it does indeed. But I would love to find myself which are the limits of this technique, if it has any! Because if people can do this like Altea does just by cold reading, well,... i would be amazed to say the least.

Every time people have analyzed complete transcripts (John Edward's shows, for example, are heavily edited) of readings from psychics, the readings are indistinguishable from cold-reading. There are several first-hand accounts of cold-reading by skeptics such as Michael Shermer and Kari Coleman. And there is much more information on the success of cold reading in Ian Rowland's "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading".

I knew these techniques but not with this name, here in my country we know many of these cheaters who use psychology tricks to fish for information, like tarot readers in general. So ok, this is cold reading. But , which are the limits of this technique?

Interestingly, the same as the limits of psychic readings.

You are 100% correct that it is not evidence for paranormal, and anywhere I stated on the contrary. I´ve came up with this to illustrate a wrong approach of suggesting something was debunked. In other words, Randi did not debunk her in this occasion. And the natural causes behind the effects , although spotted as possible of being behind it, were not proved to be in fact, the causes of the hit.

What would you consider proof under those circumstances? Randi is essentially saying, "there's no evidence that an invisible unicorn whispered in her ear", and you're saying, "yeah, but it doesn't prove there wasn't."

Evidence that cold reading could do that. Hell why Randi did not try demonstrating this on that show.

Because the point that CJ brought up has been well demonstrated - the success depends as much on the sitter as it does on the reader. The sitter is not going to respond or subjectively evaluate the reading the same way with Randi the Debunker as they would with Rosemary the Psychic.

ETA: I see Garrette beat me to Kari Coleman's article.

Linda

 

[CFLarsen]

A fraud, then.

Too bad.

 

[thaiboxerken]

AAhh so now is admitedly just an explanation, and not serious debunking...so far so good then! Still, where is the evidence?

None needed. Mundane explanations need no evidence for this type of thing. It's the supernatural explanations that need to be backed by evidence. In other words, it is illogical to go with supernatural/paranormal explanations until mundane ones have been factored out. The only real way to do this is to get Rosemary Altea to take the test. Then again, she's already been caught cheating by P&T.. a fact that you keep ignoring, over and over again.

 

[omegablue]

A fraud, then.

Too bad.

LOFL. If I said I predicted it you would call me a psychic? Or you would admit that you are a very easily predictable psychological type?

Still...where is the evidence? Hello...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Every time people have analyzed complete transcripts (John Edward's shows, for example, are heavily edited) of readings from psychics, the readings are indistinguishable from cold-reading.

Hey lets not forget the hot reading, like when Popoff was useing that radio that randi caught him doing hot readings on his audiance.

 

[omegablue]

Then Claus will be right. Fool to fraud.

Nice try, but excuse me for calling bulldropping over you?


As if I was totally unaware that this was possible eh? This actress is just one of the huge number of cases I´ve locally spotted as frauds myself. But let me tell you, she could not fool me with these shallow readings. Tarot is known to be like this. Huge generalizations that are central themes of the human psyche. It´s applicated psychology with true craftsmanship. I value tarot as a nice form of art or mythology, only! It is sure rich, but using it as a money making tool its evil, like this hottie who wrote the article also said.

So it still does not convince me that Altea-like hits are due to cold reading only. I think fraud has to be called over this as a more tenable explanation. Have to look up for the Pen and Teller episodes mentioned here though. My search goes on.

regards from "Mr Fraud" LOL

 

[CFLarsen]

LOFL. If I said I predicted it you would call me a psychic? Or you would admit that you are a very easily predictable psychological type?

Still...where is the evidence? Hello...

You still don't get it, do you?

 

[omegablue]

You still don't get it, do you?

What do I not get? That you are right and I am wrong? If so, no, not yet at least. If you´re feeling compassionate today for the ignorants and would-be-frauds, here I am to read ya again. Save me from the darkness!