PEAR Lab

[Meme101]

First post here and really hope to get some valuable input.

With regards to the close down of the PEAR lab at Princeton I read that their PSI experiments yielded chances of 3 in 100 000 and there abouts. Statistically they then concluded that these "odds" are good enough for other sciences so it is proof that there is "something" to PSI.

What I want to find out (since I am not trained in statistics) is what statistical odds are required during double blind tests to make it valid over normal odds.

Secondly does any one know about the results that PEAR achieved that would have made it worth Princeton's money and time to keep them open all these years. Does it mean that on some experiments they achieved sufficient results to warrant their existance for another year?

 

[Baron Samedi]

First post here and really hope to get some valuable input.

With regards to the close down of the PEAR lab at Princeton I read that their PSI experiments yielded chances of 3 in 100 000 and there abouts. Statistically they then concluded that these "odds" are good enough for other sciences so it is proof that there is "something" to PSI.

What I want to find out (since I am not trained in statistics) is what statistical odds are required during double blind tests to make it valid over normal odds.

Secondly does any one know about the results that PEAR achieved that would have made it worth Princeton's money and time to keep them open all these years. Does it mean that on some experiments they achieved sufficient results to warrant their existance for another year?

As far as I know, there is no "hard and fast rule" at looking at your p-values. Your p-value is a measure of the likelyhood of you making a Type I error, which says that you believe something is going on when really these results are all due to random chance alone (to paraphrase). The odds you pick are relative to what risk you decide on in making a wrong statement. In some studies you could be looking for casual relationships so a p-value of 0.1 is acceptable. In other studies, you may want to be very sure that your statement is most likely correct before publishing, since this may cost millions of lives, dollars, attitudes, your own personal reputation, etc. If so, you're looking for p-values very, very small.

Think of it this way. If 10 people do a statistical study, and you're the one person who incorrectly states that Al Gore is a better baseball player than Barry Bonds, there's very little harm done. If you're the one person who says that smoking is good for your health, you should be absolutely confident of that statement before going on CNN. (Fox News, on the other hand, why the heck not)

Their number of 0.00003 sounds impressive - a three in 100,000 chance that they made an error... according to the data they gathered. If they gathered the data incorrectly, that p-value they're stating is absolutely meaningless. GIGO. People have shown numerous gaps in that data gathering process, or even how the data is compared. How are the tests run? Who evaluates the tests? How are the tests compared? Do they compare one test, or do they compare all possible tests (see the Birthday paradox)? A stated p-value is nessessary, but is that proof alone? Nope.

 

[JonnyFive]

Their number of 0.00003 sounds impressive - a three in 100,000 chance that they made an error... according to the data they gathered. If they gathered the data incorrectly, that p-value they're stating is absolutely meaningless. GIGO. People have shown numerous gaps in that data gathering process, or even how the data is compared. How are the tests run? Who evaluates the tests? How are the tests compared? Do they compare one test, or do they compare all possible tests (see the Birthday paradox)? A stated p-value is nessessary, but is that proof alone? Nope.

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. A lot of the issues with paranormal research have to do with how the research is conducted. If the test or analysis is poorly designed, the results don't mean squat.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. A lot of the issues with paranormal research have to do with how the research is conducted. If the test or analysis is poorly designed, the results don't mean squat.

Exactly. I can come up with great numbers on a wonderful study, showing how a person was blindfolded and had to guess the colour of a playing card, either red or black. I could present the results with lots of statistical jargon, such as:

The null hypothesis states that H₀ : P = 0.5. The observer had test results showing successes 80 times out of 100. Testing H₀, we calculate Z=6. On the one-sided test on H_a: P > 0.5, our calculated p-value is much smaller than 1 in 1,000,000. We must reject H₀ in favor of H_a.

It sounds wonderful, and has a great p-value. But this is meaningless if the person's blindfold was loose and he was peeking the entire time.

 

[JonnyFive]

It sounds wonderful, and has a great p-value. But this is meaningless if the person's blindfold was loose and he was peeking the entire time.

I am reminded of Project Alpha.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I am reminded of Project Alpha.

I love how people claim that these two really did indeed have psychic abilities, but that Randi and the magician mafia got to the two of them and made them change their stories... or else.

 

[JonnyFive]

I love how people claim that these two really did indeed have psychic abilities, but that Randi and the magician mafia got to the two of them and made them change their stories... or else.

Why do some of these wackos assume that Randi et. al. don't want these powers to be real and they're working to stop the truth from coming out or something. I think it'd be pretty cool to be able to move stuff with my mind... I'd just like to, you know, see evidence that it's possible.

 

[Fnord]

Why do some of these wackos assume that Randi et. al. don't want these powers to be real and they're working to stop the truth from coming out or something. I think it'd be pretty cool to be able to move stuff with my mind... I'd just like to, you know, see evidence that it's possible.

Heckfire, we'd ALL like it if at least one woo-ish claim* would be true! I'd love to have telekinesis and put every casino in Las Vegas out of business ... or at least break their bank and end up owning one.

Or telepathy ... wouldn't you like to know what women really mean when they say "I'm fine," "Nothing's wrong," or "I love you"?

Ah well ... there's always Marvel Comics ...


(* - "Funny, you don't look woo-ish!")

 

[JonnyFive]

Or telepathy ... wouldn't you like to know what women really mean when they say "I'm fine," "Nothing's wrong," or "I love you"?

Oh, that's easy:

"I'm fine" = "Something is very, very wrong and you are the cause of it."

"Nothing's wrong" = "I hope you like sleeping in the car, because that's where you're sleeping tonight."

"I love you" =
a) "Run, mother-f**ker, run for your life!"
b) "I love you."
(about a 50-50 on this one)

 

[Baron Samedi]

Oh, that's easy:

"I'm fine" = "Something is very, very wrong and you are the cause of it."

"Nothing's wrong" = "I hope you like sleeping in the car, because that's where you're sleeping tonight."

"I love you" =
a) "Run, mother-f**ker, run for your life!"
b) "I love you."
(about a 50-50 on this one)

I thought "I love you" =
a) "I'm about to talk about something very expensive"
b) "My mother would like us to visit"
c) "Today is a very special day and you have 3 seconds to remember what it is, or..."
d) "Run, m*f*, run for your life."

 

[JonnyFive]

I thought "I love you" =
a) "I'm about to talk about something very expensive"
b) "My mother would like us to visit"
c) "Today is a very special day and you have 3 seconds to remember what it is, or..."
d) "Run, m*f*, run for your life."

True, if you're using the revised 5th edition translations.

Note that c can also be implied by the following phrases:
"How are you today?"
"What are you doing tonight?"
"Hi."

 

[fls]

True, if you're using the revised 5th edition translations.

Having never been made aware of this language, I'm curious about where I could pick up a copy. It's taken my husband a long time to realize that I don't speak this language (hard to resist the message he gets from the women at his clinic - "your wife didn't mean it when she said she didn't want a present") and I feel like I've missed out on an opportunity to wield the enormous power that comes with you-have-one-chance-to-guess-what-I'm-thinking-before-the-axe-falls.

Linda

 

[JonnyFive]

Having never been made aware of this language, I'm curious about where I could pick up a copy. It's taken my husband a long time to realize that I don't speak this language (hard to resist the message he gets from the women at his clinic - "your wife didn't mean it when she said she didn't want a present") and I feel like I've missed out on an opportunity to wield the enormous power that comes with you-have-one-chance-to-guess-what-I'm-thinking-before-the-axe-falls.

I'm afraid it's been out of print in most areas since the mid 1960's. As it is no longer considered "proper" (due to evil liberal atheists) to refer to women as "the lesser sex", "property" or "sweetcakes", and the 5th edition contains numerous occurrences of all three phrases... well, let's just say it has fallen out of favor in educated circles.

I could also reccomend "How to ◊◊◊◊ with Your Husband" by Dr. Gretta Hertz, but it's been censored by the Illuminati. Something about "Aunt Flo" and ruling the world, I don't know.

Best check eBay.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my wife just sent me an email telling me she loves me, nothing is wrong, she is fine, she misses me, and she doesn't need anything from the store when I come home this evening.

I am apparently in deep freaking ◊◊◊◊ right now.

 

[tkingdoll]

Secondly does any one know about the results that PEAR achieved that would have made it worth Princeton's money and time to keep them open all these years.

Weren't they self-funding? I thought pretty much all of their funding came from private donors?

 

[JonnyFive]

Weren't they self-funding? I thought pretty much all of their funding came from private donors?

Well, they were still using at least some of Princeton's resources, in terms of office and lab space, right?

 

[tkingdoll]

Well, they were still using at least some of Princeton's resources, in terms of office and lab space, right?

That is true, but it was a tiny little room, not some giant lab with all mod cons. And unless there was a long list of better projects which needed the space but were deprived, I don't think taking up a room in the basement is too much of a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending PEAR, I think it was the biggest waste of money ever. But that's only because they didn't find anything. If they had found something, it would have been the best use of money ever, and that's always worth trying (just not for 30 years, IMHO).

 

[JonnyFive]

That is true, but it was a tiny little room, not some giant lab with all mod cons. And unless there was a long list of better projects which needed the space but were deprived, I don't think taking up a room in the basement is too much of a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending PEAR, I think it was the biggest waste of money ever. But that's only because they didn't find anything. If they had found something, it would have been the best use of money ever, and that's always worth trying (just not for 30 years, IMHO).

I understand what you mean.

I really don't know much about the resources they used. I guess Princeton finally figured that they weren't worth whatever they were using up.

I agree that it's worth investigating scientifically. Unfortunately, I think PEAR didn't do a very good job of being scientifically rigorous. They delved too much into data mining, and that never comes out well.

 

[Baron Samedi]

True, if you're using the revised 5th edition translations.

Note that c can also be implied by the following phrases:
"How are you today?"
"What are you doing tonight?"
"Hi."

Oh boy, I had to pull out my dictionary for that one:

"What are you doing tonight?"

a: Today is a very special day and you have 3 seconds to remember
b: I'm going to sneak out with my friends and want to know when to be back so I don't get caught
c: I just made a fabulous cheesecake and you'd better not fill yourself on Buffalo wings and Guiness before you get home
d: Forget your plans to watch football since something better is on tv
e: I'm wearing nothing but a french maid outfit

It goes on for a few pages here.

To tie it back to the topic at hand, it's like PEAR's RV tests.

Drawing: A circle with squiggly lines
Possible matches:
- A tree
- A swimming pool
- A sunny area
- A parking lot with a VW bug
- A balding accountant
- A corner with a stop sign (it's sort-of roundish)

The list goes on and on ...

 

[Baron Samedi]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending PEAR, I think it was the biggest waste of money ever. But that's only because they didn't find anything. If they had found something, it would have been the best use of money ever, and that's always worth trying (just not for 30 years, IMHO).

That's a cherry picking attitude. If the endeavour is only worth-while if and only if the result was positive, you're throwing out all the knowledge gained from non-results. Sometimes it's great information to know that there is no difference between two methods. Plus, taking that attitude means that the Houston Texans are the biggest waste of money ever, even above PEAR.

 

[Fnord]

Now, if you'll excuse me, my wife just sent me an email telling me she loves me, nothing is wrong, she is fine, she misses me, and she doesn't need anything from the store when I come home this evening.

I am apparently in deep freaking ◊◊◊◊ right now.

Yes. You Are. It could only be one of two things: Something you did, or something you said. Try to remember every detail of your life over the last five years. Be sure to include every sigh, twitch, or hesitation.

Oh, and bring flowers. She will either forgive you or place them on your grave. It's a 50/50 chance, either way.