• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Design a double-blind experiment

Luke T.

Unregistered
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,716
Since Steve Grenard has provided what he thinks is an experiment to test mediums in this topic., why don't we skeptics design one as well? I don't think we have ever really done that here.

We have a lot of bright minds here. I would very much like to see us take a crack at it.

I have never worked on a real laboratory experiment in my life. And so I have certainly never designed one. I have only read the work of others. I don't think I'm the best guy to lay the framework. I'm better at critiquing. :D

I'm a technician, not an engineer. Technicians suffer from the mistakes of design made by engineers when those designs are put into real world application. So that is why I am better at troubleshooting than designing.

So, who can design a mediumship experiment for us? Beware, I will be as harsh on any bias I see as I have been with Steve.
 
First of all, we're talking about designing an experiment to see if someone can contact the spirit of a dead person, when we don't know whether there are any spirits at all.

Second, even if there are spirits, we don't know how the medium hooks up with the ones appropriate for the sitter.

Third, even if the medium hooks up with the right spirits, we don't know what the mode of communication is, nor do we know what the spirit remembers and can tell the medium.

That said, it should be a double-blind experiment in which the sitter receives multiple readings (at least five?) and has to select the one for him. That's it, no scoring or judging. Just select the right one. We should have "real mediums," cold readers, and regular bozos doing the readings. The experiment is double blind because the experimenters don't do squat.

How do we connect the medium to the sitter?

If the real mediums fail, it doesn't prove that they can't talk to dead people.

~~ Paul
 
What about Randi's proposed test for Sylvia Browne? Would that qualify as a test of a medium?
 
xouper said:
What about Randi's proposed test for Sylvia Browne? Would that qualify as a test of a medium?

Are the actual protocols available somewhere? If so, I missed it.
 
I bet that even I could set up a decent test. But, you have to make a claim. Make one hypothetically.
What can you do and with what percent accuracy for starters.
 
I've done rather a few DBT's for audio in my career. I haven't done any for PSI, and I admit to not being interested very much in doing so, because audio subjects are mostly straight, and I don't have the same sense of PSI subjects.

I'd rather put a professional magician together with a person used to designing tests to do such a protocol.

But first we need a good, testable hypothesis. When we get that, at least we can start.
 
I think Paul and JJ have both hit the nail on the head here. The fundamental problem with psi research is that, in order to properly do a test for some type of psi phenomena (like communicating with the dead), a falsifiable theory must be constructed.

Psi proponents either can't, or won't, do this. This is understandable, for several reasons.

1) There is no information to base such a theory on. Parapsychology is a unique field, in that it is the only field which attempts to scientifically understand phenomena which, as far as we know, may not even exist!

2) All of the various falsifiable hypotheses that people have dreamed up, have been quickly falsified. Nobody want's to stick their neck out by inventing new ones, because they know they will fail.

3) Many of the scientists in the field have a very poor understanding of the scientific method, and don't realize this is necessary.

The few "psi" experiments out there that are actually being done in a systematic and controlled way, are not really testing for psi at all. They are looking for "anomalous events". If these people knew anything about experimental research, they would know how futile this is. No physical experimental result ever exactly matches the theory, because there are always approximations in the theory, measurement noise, and uncontrolled for external influences.

In other words, it is a well known fact in experimental data analysis, that if you take enough data, and analyse it with sensitive enough measure statistics, you will always find statistical anomalies!

Anyway, I digress. The point is that no good double blind test for speaking to the dead is ever going to be constructed, until somebody proposes a falsifiable mechanism for how the person is talking to the dead. Likewise, falsification of that theory won't prove that people can't talk to the dead, it will just prove that the proposed mechanism doesn't work.

All this business of testing so-called psychic's ability to what they claim they can do, is very useful for the purpose Randi uses it for (to demonstrate that the people making these claims are frauds), but is useless as a protocol for serious scientific investigation.

Dr. Stupid
 
Hypothesis:

"Clod Readers, Hot Readers, Conjourers, or Trickster experts are unable to replicate the same results as Laurie Campbell John Edward, Suzane Northrop, George Anderson and Anne Gehman, collectively known as 'research mediums' for the HESL, under the conditions and protocols of the research of Dr Schwartz."

Testing the hypothesis will measure one way or the other whether known scientific (mundane) methods are being employed.

We don't need to worry about dead people here, what's important is finding out if mundane means are responsible for the results.
 
"There are three primary alternative (anomalous / paranormal) hypotheses that can account for the present findings (Gauld, 1983; Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001). We suggest that all three may be involved in anomalous information retrieval, and that they share a common dependence on info-energy systemic resonance relationships (described in Schwartz and Russek, 1999). Other hypotheses may also be possible, including novel hypotheses that have yet to be conceived (a position recommended by Michael Shermer).

The first hypothesis is telepathy with the living. The premise is that the medium is reading the conscious mind of the sitter (locally and / or nonlocally). Given the level of awareness and experience of the sitter in the present experiment, telepathy with the sitter needs to be seriously considered.

However, the inclusion of Phases 1 and 2 in this experiment, coupled with the observation that four pieces of specific information were not known to the sitter prior to the reading:

(1) the stone church along the river (for M),

(2) Aunt A's living grand daughter's crisis (K),

(3) the correct spelling of K's name (GD thought it was spelled with a C), and

(4) J's living on the east coast in Brooklyn, make the simple telepathy hypothesis insufficient to account for all the information retrieved by LC.

The second hypothesis is often termed "superpsi" (e.g. Braude 1992). One version of the super-psi hypothesis can be thought of as an extended unconscious telepathy / systemic resonance mechanism with everyone presently living (Schwartz and Russek, 1999). Simply stated, (1) LC resonates with the experimenters, (2) the experimenters resonate with the sitter (e.g. the senior author has spoken with GD numerous times and met him three times in person), (3) the sitter resonates with his living family members and friends (including family members and friends of M, A, B, and J), and (4) the information is retrieved unconsciously through systemic memory resonance (Schwartz and Russek, 1999). The network of dynamic info-energy relationships is accessed unconsciously by LC. The majority of the present findings are consistent with such a network memory resonance hypothesis.

Given that the telepathy hypothesis (1) and the network memory resonance hypothesis (2) (one example of a superpsi hypothesis, Braude 1992) are both plausible in principle, the question arises, do hypotheses 1 and 2 together account for all the data in this research reading? We suggest no.

Close examination of the languaging used by LC indicates that she is not simply reporting memories and images. LC is also reporting intentions and interpretations reflecting the information processing of "entities" (her words), or dynamically changing info-energy systems (our words, Schwartz and Russek, 1999).

When LC describes how M is interpreting future changes in GD's life, for example, the languaging not only implies that M is living, but the precise way the information is being organized is recognized by GD as reflecting M's mind and personality.

In other words, it is the specific intentional and organizing nature of the way the information is received by LC and reported to GD that suggests that LC is not simply reporting the conscious or unconscious memories of GD and his extended network of family and friends. We term hypothesis 3 the organizing consciousness (or soul) hypothesis (reflecting the fact that it is the precise details of the organizing nature of the information that implies the continued existence of an intentional, living consciousness (soul).

[Note: One reviewer suggested that LC might be "role-playing and impersonating discarnate entities. This speculation, in the abstract, is correct. However, in the concrete, given the highly blinded nature of Phases 1 and II, the role-playing hypothesis seems somewhat unlikely in LC's case.]

In view of the decades of substantial and replicated experimental research in parapsychology (e.g. meta-analyses reviewed in Radin, 1997), it is prudent to consider the possibility not only that all three hypotheses may be true, but that hypotheses 1 and 2 (telepathy and superpsi) may be prerequisite mechanisms for discovering hypothesis 3 (e.g. the organizing consciousness). Hypotheses 1 and 2 may be intimately involved in the discovery of hypothesis 3. In other words, we propose that hypotheses 1 and 2 may provide the mechanistic foundation that allows hypothesis 3 to be documented (e.g. mediums claim that they engage in "telepathy" with the deceased). Together, they reflect an integrative triune approach to dynamic anomalous information retrieval." Dr Gary Schwartz.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/experiments/mental/schwartz02.htm
 
Lucianarchy,

"Clod Readers, Hot Readers, Conjourers, or Trickster experts are unable to replicate the same results as Laurie Campbell John Edward, Suzane Northrop, George Anderson and Anne Gehman, collectively known as 'research mediums' for the HESL, under the conditions and protocols of the research of Dr Schwartz."

Testing the hypothesis will measure one way or the other whether known scientific (mundane) methods are being employed.

No, it won't. What it will test is exactly what the hypothesis says, and nothing more. Even if the experiment is done perfectly, we won't know whether it is because those people you mention really have "non-mundane" powers, or just because they are better at the mundane methods than the people used for the positive control.

We don't need to worry about dead people here, what's important is finding out if mundane means are responsible for the results.

Exactly, but your hypothesis won't test that. Neither will any hypothesis which does not propose a falsifiable mechanism for the hypothesized "non-mundane" means.

"There are three primary alternative (anomalous / paranormal) hypotheses that can account for the present findings (Gauld, 1983; Schwartz et al, 1999; Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, and Barentsen, 2001). We suggest that all three may be involved in anomalous information retrieval, and that they share a common dependence on info-energy systemic resonance relationships (described in Schwartz and Russek, 1999). Other hypotheses may also be possible, including novel hypotheses that have yet to be conceived (a position recommended by Michael Shermer).

See, this is just the kind of crap I am talking about. Rather than a specific, falsifiable hypothesis, what they've got is a bunch of vague, ad-hoc explanations that they can shoe-horn any anomalous results they find into. It's pure nonsense. This is not science, and these people are a disgrace to real scientists.

Dr. Stupid
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Lucianarchy,


No, it won't. What it will test is exactly what the hypothesis says, and nothing more. Even if the experiment is done perfectly, we won't know whether it is because those people you mention really have "non-mundane" powers, or just because they are better at the mundane methods than the people used for the positive control.

Dr. Stupid

If they were just "better", than known scientific methods will be able to explain and demonstrate how the tricksters can be "better".

You can't call someone a liar without proving that they are a liar and still have any credibility as a skeptic or a scientist
 
Lucianarchy,

No, it won't. What it will test is exactly what the hypothesis says, and nothing more. Even if the experiment is done perfectly, we won't know whether it is because those people you mention really have "non-mundane" powers, or just because they are better at the mundane methods than the people used for the positive control.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they were just "better", than known scientific methods will be able to explain and demonstrate how the tricksters can be "better".

The fact that some people are better at a particular skill than others, is hardly a phenomena in need of scientific explanation. :rolleyes:

You can't call someone a liar without proving that they are a liar and still have any credibility as a skeptic or a scientist.

So what? I can certainly point out the possibility that they were lying. You can't accept somebody's word for having magical powers before first ruling out the possibility that they are lying about it.

If we were just going to take their word for it, there would be no point in testing their claims in the first place, would there?

Dr. Stupid
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
Lucianarchy,



The fact that some people are better at a particular skill than others, is hardly a phenomena in need of scientific explanation. :rolleyes:


It is in terms of explaining the claimed mechanism. Saying "he cold reads" or "he is cheating" or "he is a medium" is just a cop out in terms of scientific progress. You need to explain how, once the known mechanisms have been shown to fail under controlled conditions. You'd think magicians/ cr's etc would be keen to demonstrate how they can operate under the same conditions as the mediums and produce the same results. But, evidently, they can't.
 
Lucianarchy,

The fact that some people are better at a particular skill than others, is hardly a phenomena in need of scientific explanation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is in terms of explaining the claimed mechanism. Saying "he cold reads" or "he is cheating" or "he is a medium" is just a cop out in terms of scientific progress.

You seem to have things a bit backwards here. Things like cold reading and cheating are not hypothesized mechanisms for an unknown phenomenon. They are (some of) the known possible explanations for what these people do. Until it is demonstrated that what they are doing is not one of these things, there is no scientific question to be addressed. We already know that many people fraudulently present themselves as psychics. You have to control for that before you can even begin an experiment.

You need to explain how, once the known mechanisms have been shown to fail under controlled conditions. You'd think magicians/ cr's etc would be keen to demonstrate how they can operate under the same conditions as the mediums and produce the same results. But, evidently, they can't.

First of all, I wouldn't think that at all. It is not at all difficult to imagine people who make a business out of fraudulently presenting themselves being better at it than people who know the tricks, but do not make a practice out of try to pass them off as real powers. Furthermore, I know of no evidence that this is even the case. Has anybody ever demonstrated, under properly controlled conditions, that people claiming to be real psychics are more successful than magicians? My point was that even if such an experiment were done, with proper controls, and proper data analysis, that it still wouldn't say jack squat about psi.

Dr. Stupid
 
Let's pretend for a moment that there is some way to rule out the possibility of a mundane explanation for mediums, and so they must be using some "paranormal" ability. How can we possibly distinguish between talking to dead people and ESP/RV? Everything the medium says is either in the head of the sitter(s) or a fact in the world, both of which can be obtained via ESP or RV. If the medium says something that only the dead person knows, there is no way to verify it, so it will appear to be a miss. Hell, maybe everything we call a miss is really a hit and vice versa.

~~ Paul
 
xouper said:
I never really understood that proposed Sylvia test. Surely, the person being read over the phone would know they were being read (duh) and so would not be blind to the procedure? Also the other nine people would know they had not been read. So the person being read would be subject to confirmation bias while the other nine would not. Did I miss something?
 
Stimpson J. Cat said:
The point is that no good double blind test for speaking to the dead is ever going to be constructed, until somebody proposes a falsifiable mechanism for how the person is talking to the dead.
This puzzles me a bit. Surely we don’t know the mechanism for how quantum mechanics works. When we perform the two slit experiment, and add an electron detector at one of the slits, we find the electron behaves like a particle. But we don’t know how this works, do we? Why is this different?
 
RichardR said:
This puzzles me a bit. Surely we don’t know the mechanism for how quantum mechanics works. When we perform the two slit experiment, and add an electron detector at one of the slits, we find the electron behaves like a particle. But we don’t know how this works, do we? Why is this different?
The point Stimpy was making was to hypothesize a mechanism, not to know a mechanism. The two-slit experiments you mention, for example, each hypothesized a mechanism. The researcher said "I think it acts this way. If that is true, and I think I should be able to distinguish that mechanism from other possibilities in the following way." Then he designs and executes the experiment to see how it behaves and whether that behavior refutes or corroborates his hypothesized mechanism.

Cheers,
 
RichardR said:
I never really understood that proposed Sylvia test. Surely, the person being read over the phone would know they were being read (duh) and so would not be blind to the procedure? Also the other nine people would know they had not been read. So the person being read would be subject to confirmation bias while the other nine would not. Did I miss something?

RichardR,

Randi doesn't describe this as double-blind in that commentary. He also doesn't specify enough details to know whether it is or isn't double-blinded. If, for example, Randi planned to tape the one-sided reading of the selected sitter and then phone the other ten and play Sylvia's reading to them as if it were for them, that would give equal confirmation bias to each sitter.

Cheers,
 

Back
Top Bottom