It's just a coincidence!!!

[Rodney]

There are a couple of things to consider here. First of all (I realize that I am repeating myself), "statistical significance" is not a measure of the truth of an idea. So dismissing a statistically significant result does not mean that you are dismissing an idea that might be true. I have already explained to you numerous times why this is the case.

Second (I realize that this is also a repeat), bias (a tendency to create measurements in a particular direction that is not representative of the population under study) is very difficult to eliminate completely. What we can do reasonably successfully is eliminate most sources of bias, so that we can say at the end "any source of bias, if present, would have to be miniscule and therefore cannot account for an effect of this size". However, the effect that we are talking about for PEAR is miniscule. Which means that it would be very easy for any residual bias in the experiment to completely account for the effect.

You have to remember that this data was based on a machine that was supposedly able to generate random numbers. Over the years, various ways have been developed to simulate the process of generating random numbers and we test whether or not they are successful using a Goodness of Fit test. However, these tests are fairly crude and will miss moderate deviations from true randomness. What the researchers did was make a machine, do a rough test to see if it was grossly different from true randomness (no), generate millions of outputs, and then apply an especially sensitive test to see if those outputs were different from true randomness (yes). All they really proved is that their machine was not a perfect random number generator. But what they (and you) wanted to conclude was that it was not perfect because of the existence of psi. What skeptics point out is that maybe it just wasn't perfect because machines are rarely (if ever) perfect.

So I agree with Skepdic that one should favour highly probable events as a explanation over highly improbable events.

Sorry, but your analysis with respect to Skepdic is completely off-point. Obviously, if there was a bias in the PEAR tests, the results would be inaccurate. But that's not what Robert Carroll of Skepdic says; rather, he says that "statistical significance does not imply IMPORTANCE." (emphasis added.) Try as you might, you can't get around the fact that Carroll thinks that, even if PEAR's tests were done perfectly, the statistically significant results aren't important!

And this is not the first time Carroll has shown his ignorance; skepdic.com also maintains that Edgar Cayce "was the first to recommend laetrile as a cancer cure." See http://www.skepdic.com/cayce.html (For those who don't know, laetrile was not synthesized until 1952 -- seven years after Cayce's death. See http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=346523)

Now, with respect to your altogether different contention that PEAR's tests WERE biased, what is your evidence that PEAR's random number generator produced results that favored the operators' intentions?

 

[fls]

Sorry, but your analysis with respect to Skepdic is completely off-point. Obviously, if there was a bias in the PEAR tests, the results would be inaccurate. But that's not what Robert Carroll of Skepdic says; rather, he says that "statistical significance does not imply IMPORTANCE." (emphasis added.) Try as you might, you can't get around the fact that Carroll thinks that, even if PEAR's tests were done perfectly, the statistically significant results aren't important!

And this is not the first time Carroll has shown his ignorance; skepdic.com also maintains that Edgar Cayce "was the first to recommend laetrile as a cancer cure." See http://www.skepdic.com/cayce.html (For those who don't know, laetrile was not synthesized until 1952 -- seven years after Cayce's death. See http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=346523)

The problem for me was that your comment regarding Robert Carroll's statement (then and now) was off-point from what he was referring to. But I didn't want to make a big deal about it because I think any/all of these points are relevant to what conclusions can be drawn from the PEAR data. His comment refers to a common observation - the measure of the statistical significance is different from the measure of the effect size.

Now, with respect to your altogether different contention that PEAR's tests WERE biased, what is your evidence that PEAR's random number generator produced results that favored the operators' intentions?

My contention is that the results did not favour the operators' intentions. The idea that significant differences were found is based on the method of analysis - i.e. choosing methods that are most favourable to the idea and would usually be considered invalid (given the nature of the phenomenon they are claiming it proves) or at least highly questionable. Choosing methods that are neutral (measured variance instead of theoretical, two-tailed testing) makes the differences not significantly different from chance variation. This doesn't even take into consideration that it has been suggested (by parapsychologists) that it would be more appropriate to raise the bar, if they want to make progress instead of chasing dead ends.

If the differences were more robust, I'd still be worried about a bias in the output of the machine (for example, a change in output depending upon the operating temperature) that happened to occur somewhat more frequently during particular types of runs. Because the effect was so miniscule, it would be easy for normal variation in sampling to account for the difference.

And then there is the issue that half of the "positive" data came from one operator, and that this operator may have been someone who was heavily invested in the outcome of the research and had access to the data and the machines. It would be foolish not to be suspicious.

Linda

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, is that you breathing fire there on your avatar?

Yep--on stilts. It's also how I'd like to respond in some of these threads.

Obviously, if there was a bias in the PEAR tests, the results would be inaccurate. But that's not what Robert Carroll of Skepdic says; rather, he says that "statistical significance does not imply IMPORTANCE." (emphasis added.) Try as you might, you can't get around the fact that Carroll thinks that, even if PEAR's tests were done perfectly, the statistically significant results aren't important!

I'm not sure of the context, but it sounds like Carroll is saying that a barely measurable effect that has never been reproduced outside that one lab is completely unimportant even if they're able to choose certain statistical tests (as Linda points out) that show statistical significance.

Let's for a moment imagine that PEAR was conducted the way any other research lab (and didn't form a for profit corporation to sell their flimflammery). Imagine they never did arbitrary starting and stopping points. They didn't play games with the data analysis--they even made their data public. Let's imagine all that were true (which is isn't). What would you have? Evidence of an incredibly slight telekinetic power? What would that mean? In a gozillion tries you can get a pair of dice to come up with your number just barely more often than it would by chance?

I think the casinos have NOTHING to worry about.

 

[-Fran-]

Yep--on stilts.

Wow... That's kinda sexy

It's also how I'd like to respond in some of these threads.

wouldn't it be hard to reach the keyboard?

 

[Rodney]

The problem for me was that your comment regarding Robert Carroll's statement (then and now) was off-point from what he was referring to. But I didn't want to make a big deal about it because I think any/all of these points are relevant to what conclusions can be drawn from the PEAR data. His comment refers to a common observation - the measure of the statistical significance is different from the measure of the effect size.

I don't see how Carroll's comment can be read the way that you're reading it. If he meant what you think he meant, he would have said something like "statistical significance does not imply a true effect" and not "statistical significance does not imply importance."

My contention is that the results did not favour the operators' intentions. The idea that significant differences were found is based on the method of analysis - i.e. choosing methods that are most favourable to the idea and would usually be considered invalid (given the nature of the phenomenon they are claiming it proves) or at least highly questionable. Choosing methods that are neutral (measured variance instead of theoretical, two-tailed testing) makes the differences not significantly different from chance variation. This doesn't even take into consideration that it has been suggested (by parapsychologists) that it would be more appropriate to raise the bar, if they want to make progress instead of chasing dead ends.

If the differences were more robust, I'd still be worried about a bias in the output of the machine (for example, a change in output depending upon the operating temperature) that happened to occur somewhat more frequently during particular types of runs. Because the effect was so miniscule, it would be easy for normal variation in sampling to account for the difference.

And then there is the issue that half of the "positive" data came from one operator, and that this operator may have been someone who was heavily invested in the outcome of the research and had access to the data and the machines. It would be foolish not to be suspicious.
Linda

But you have no evidence that there was anything wrong with the way PEAR conducted its tests. What would it take to convince you that PEAR measured a slight, but real effect?

 

[Rodney]

. . . What would you have? Evidence of an incredibly slight telekinetic power? What would that mean? . . .

That Randi's and other skeptics' belief that there is no such thing as mind-matter interactions is wrong.

 

[Chimera]

The "Lincoln's dream" comment reminded me...my husband claims to have had a nightmare about his mother dying the night before it happened. He may have; of course, she was deathly ill, so her impending demise was on his mind anyway.

Since then, he has had 2 dreams of his brother dying, which so far has NOT come to pass. Of course, my husband has no recollection of these dreams, just the one that came true.

 

[TheAnachronism]

Rodney, if what we call coincidences turn out to indeed be the result of some paranormal condition/situation/thing, what purpose do you suppose they'd serve? I really don't understand.

I might be able to see your "telepathic" argument in some cases, but what about cases where telepathy would play no role whatsoever?

For example: suppose I see a car with a license reading "111111," and I muse about that on my way to work. After entering the building, I take the elevator to the 12th floor, but it gets stuck on the 11th by mistake. When I get home from work, I have 11 new emails in my inbox.

Do you believe there is a higher power at work, expounding to me the beauty of the number 1? Am I telepathically rigging my inbox so that no more than 11 emails can be sent to me? If I was later hit & killed by a truck with "11" painted on the side, would that make a difference?

Are some things paranormal, while others are just coincidences as we know them? How does one tell the difference?

 

[-Fran-]

That Randi's and other skeptics' belief that there is no such thing as mind-matter interactions is wrong.

That is not a belief, it's a stance based on the non-probability for such a thing, the non-necessity of such a thing, and the lack of evidence for such a thing. In the case of clear evidence that stance would have changed.

A belief, on the other hand, does not change with evidence or lack thereof, and therefore it is rather clear to me that those who are holding the beliefs here are the people who has a belief in such things as paranormal mind-matter interactions.

 

[fls]

I don't see how Carroll's comment can be read the way that you're reading it.

I realize that you don't see it that way, but I have the advantage of having heard that exact same statement used in reference to medical research on numerous occasions (including using it myself) and so I know what it refers to.

If he meant what you think he meant, he would have said something like "statistical significance does not imply a true effect" and not "statistical significance does not imply importance."

Nope. That is different from what I said he was referring to.

Another way to put it is "it's like pissing in the ocean".

But you have no evidence that there was anything wrong with the way PEAR conducted its tests.

Right. The evidence shows that they analyzed their data inappropriately. But the word I used to describe concerns about the way they conducted their tests was "suspicious".

What would it take to convince you that PEAR measured a slight, but real effect?

I think new, independent experiments would have to be performed which fully addressed the various concerns that have been raised.

Linda

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have a funny question for everyone.

I'm a die-hard skeptic and I'm outraged at the fraud part of woo but I find woo itself, as a subject, fascinating.

I've found that learning and educating myself about it has thought me alot about human beings, how our minds function, about psychology, and, indeed, how the world functions. I find the study of woo endlessly fascinating in a thousand different ways.

I'm also something of a religion buff even though I no longer have any religious beliefs. I appreciate religion very much as culture and as mythology. I'm a history buff and former art student as well so I also love the history of religion and appreciate religion as a cornerstone of our civilization and as the source of great art.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the major fraudsters, like mediums and psyhics who claim to contact the dead, and would do away with them in a second if I could but I'm fascinated by the thinking that leads people to them.

Does anyone feel the same way?

 

[-Fran-]

I have a funny question for everyone.

I'm a die-hard skeptic and I'm outraged at the fraud part of woo but I find woo itself, as a subject, fascinating.

I've found that learning and educating myself about it has thought me alot about human beings, how our minds function, about psychology, and, indeed, how the world functions. I find the study of woo endlessly fascinating in a thousand different ways.

I'm also something of a religion buff even though I no longer have any religious beliefs. I appreciate religion very much as culture and as mythology. I'm a history buff and former art student as well so I also love the history of religion and appreciate religion as a cornerstone of our civilization and as the source of great art.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the major fraudsters, like mediums and psyhics who claim to contact the dead, and would do away with them in a second if I could but I'm fascinated by the thinking that leads people to them.

Does anyone feel the same way?

Yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. I've been an atheist all my life but I find many religions very interesting, and I can appreciate the beauty of Christian art, music and not least architecture. I've always been interested in myth, legends and folklore. And no matter what one think about some of the manifestations of religion, its importance when it comes to culture and history, among other things can not be disputed. Importance in itself does not say if it was a good or a bad thing, for that matter, it just says it played an important part in certain given situations. I am also very interested in the way the mind works, and the psychology of the human being, and you can't study such things without also studying the delusions.

I think that a skeptic and/or an atheist who thinks you have to stay away from everything that has to do with any sort of woo, and don't read, study and learn about the many layers of it, is wrong. I think rather few skeptics think that though. Most skeptics I have met and talked to, are rather well read in things like different sorts of woo, myth and religion. Many skeptics are also fans of fantasy and science fiction. Most of us are perfectly willing to suspend belief for a while, while reading a good SF book or watching a fantasy film.

Many skeptics, including myself, also like art and objects that are sometimes, or often, connected with woo-practices. But objects are objects and can not have any woo-characteristics in themselves, it's given those attributes by people. What do I care if some nutty woo thinks there is healing powers in a crystal, if I think it's pretty and want it in my collection? Some skeptics collect Tarot cards, and so on...

There's nothing that says that as a skeptic and/or an atheist, one has to dissacociate oneself from anything in particular. I think that if you do, you are missing out on a lot of knowledge and understanding of the cultures and history of earth, and you are doing yourself a disservice. All skeptics are different as people anyway. And it's silly, and sad, if some would be ashamed or embarrassed to, for example, liking the art of tarot cards, just because some nuts think they can tell the future.

The difference lies in how you deal with different things. The skeptic and the woo might very well be interested in the same things, but the outlook they have, and the way they are nearing these things, and the way they understand them are totally different. It's a difference in thinking, I think, not necessarily a difference in interests or tastes. Though there might be huge differences in that too, of course.

And it is always important to remember that interest in - does NOT equal belief in!!

 

[fls]

Does anyone feel the same way?

Yeah, me too.

Linda

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, if what we call coincidences turn out to indeed be the result of some paranormal condition/situation/thing, what purpose do you suppose they'd serve? I really don't understand.

I might be able to see your "telepathic" argument in some cases, but what about cases where telepathy would play no role whatsoever?

For example: suppose I see a car with a license reading "111111," and I muse about that on my way to work. After entering the building, I take the elevator to the 12th floor, but it gets stuck on the 11th by mistake. When I get home from work, I have 11 new emails in my inbox.

Do you believe there is a higher power at work, expounding to me the beauty of the number 1? Am I telepathically rigging my inbox so that no more than 11 emails can be sent to me? If I was later hit & killed by a truck with "11" painted on the side, would that make a difference?

Are some things paranormal, while others are just coincidences as we know them? How does one tell the difference?

Good questions, to which generally there are no definitive answers. However, regarding your next-to-last question, I think that most people who believe in synchronicity agree that there are ordinary coincidences. As far as telling the difference between those and synchronistic events, I think it's mostly a matter of probabilities. For example, if you run into a neighbor at the local supermarket regularly on Saturday mornings, the likelihood is that your schedules are similar, and so that's no big deal. If, on the other hand, you take a trip to Timbuktu and run into the neighbor there, that probably is a big deal. As in anything else in life, there can be a fine line between the two, and I don't think anyone will be convinced that there is such a thing as synchronistic events without significant personal experiences. As to why they occur, here is the take of Jung scholar Dr. Roderick Main:

"Synchronicity suggests that there are uncaused events, that matter has a psychic aspect, that the psyche can relativise time and space, and that there may be a dimension of objective meaning accessible to but not created by humans... If the psyche can relativise time and space, then it becomes possible for temporally and spatially distant events somehow to involve themselves in the here and now without any normal channel of causal transmission. If there is a dimension of objective meaning, this implies that the meaning we experience in not always or entirely our subjective creation, individually or as a species, but that we may be woven into an order of meaning that transcends our human perspective." See http://web.ncf.ca/dy656/earthpages3/articles_synchronicity.htm

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

EeneyMinnieMoe, absolutely.

ETA: Great post, Fran.

And Eeney, I think your observation deserves a longer answer. The chance to learn about different kinds of woo is one of the reasons I read (and, to a lesser degree, post on) this board. When asked what's so great about this place, I answer that it's a community consisting mostly of very intelligent people, with experts from many fields of science, and then once in a while a nutter of some variety comes streaking through, arms flailing. The contrast of that is both very entertaining and very educational.

 

[-Fran-]

Yeah, me too.

Linda

Or I could have just said that. I'm such a blabbermouth

ETA: Great post, Fran.

Thanks

I answer that it's a community consisting mostly of very intelligent people, with experts from many fields of science, and then once in a while a nutter of some variety comes streaking through, arms flailing.

Now I keep seeing that image in my head, and it totally gives me the giggles

 

[-Fran-]

As far as telling the difference between those and synchronistic events, I think it's mostly a matter of probabilities. For example, if you run into a neighbor at the local supermarket regularly on Saturday mornings, the likelihood is that your schedules are similar, and so that's no big deal.

If, on the other hand, you take a trip to Timbuktu and run into the neighbor there, that probably is a big deal.

So, you would call the first situation a "normal coincidence", and the other a "paranormal coincidence"?

I would say that the first situation is not coincidence at all, and the second IS the coincidence. None of them are paranormal.

We are still defining things very differently here.

 

[fls]

"Synchronicity suggests that there are uncaused events, that matter has a psychic aspect, that the psyche can relativise time and space, and that there may be a dimension of objective meaning accessible to but not created by humans... If the psyche can relativise time and space, then it becomes possible for temporally and spatially distant events somehow to involve themselves in the here and now without any normal channel of causal transmission. If there is a dimension of objective meaning, this implies that the meaning we experience in not always or entirely our subjective creation, individually or as a species, but that we may be woven into an order of meaning that transcends our human perspective." See http://web.ncf.ca/dy656/earthpages3/articles_synchronicity.htm

Where is Sokal when you need him.

Linda

 

[Warge]

I have a funny question for everyone.

I'm a die-hard skeptic and I'm outraged at the fraud part of woo but I find woo itself, as a subject, fascinating.

I've found that learning and educating myself about it has thought me alot about human beings, how our minds function, about psychology, and, indeed, how the world functions. I find the study of woo endlessly fascinating in a thousand different ways.

I'm also something of a religion buff even though I no longer have any religious beliefs. I appreciate religion very much as culture and as mythology. I'm a history buff and former art student as well so I also love the history of religion and appreciate religion as a cornerstone of our civilization and as the source of great art.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the major fraudsters, like mediums and psyhics who claim to contact the dead, and would do away with them in a second if I could but I'm fascinated by the thinking that leads people to them.

Does anyone feel the same way?

You and me both. And I happen to actually appreciate woo (in some ways) since I have seen it do wonders for the mental health of people. People who are depressed, confused and so on often go to woo in order to find comfort. As my old religion teacher said: "you get butter when you die - it's better that way." (free translation - fran might appreciate the original: Du får smör när du dör." )

I see a lot of woo as just that: comfort in hard times. The end justify the means, and if no one is hurt or fooled, I don't have a problem with people believing in ghosts, UFOs or Village People.

 

[fls]

If, on the other hand, you take a trip to Timbuktu and run into the neighbor there, that probably is a big deal.

Given that the probability that you will be at a certain place and the probability that someone you have a connection to will also be in the same place (at the same time) is not independent, what do you think the probability of this event would be? One in a thousand? One in a million? One in a billion? Wouldn't you expect that at least some of the people that have already been selected as following a somewhat similar path to you (i.e. your paths have already converged in order for you to have a connection) would continue to follow a similar path and that you would continue to see occasional convergence?

How many opportunities are there in a lifetime for you meet someone you would be similarly unlikely to meet at that particular place and time - how many places do you go and how many people do you meet each day?

Linda