• 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

BillHoyt said:

Implicit in this, jj, is the a priori definition of the success criteria.
And that these criteria must be objective.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Well, Bill, we hadn't gotten to a task yet.

That's still way, way down the road.
 
Lucianarchy: Hypothesis: "Clod Readers, ..."
Click to expand...
I know it's bad form to comment on accidental spellnig errors, but some of them are a good source of accidental humor. Not laughing at Luci, just the mental image of a clod reader. "I'm getting a D, yes, I see a D, and also some IRT. Does that sound familiar to you?"
 
BillHoyt said:

Implicit in this, jj, is the a priori definition of the success criteria.
And that these criteria must be objective.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

The measurement of "success" will be, to use the JREF's own terms, "self evident". If that is good enough for the JREF and $1m , then that should be sufficient here to.
 
Lucianarchy: The measurement of "success" will be, to use the JREF's own terms, "self evident". If that is good enough for the JREF and $1m , then that should be sufficient here to.
Click to expand...
In addition to being "self-evident", JREF also asks that the criteria for success be defined precisely. The "self-evident" part comes in comparing the results of the test to the defined criteria.
 
xouper said:
In addition to being "self-evident", JREF also asks that the criteria for success be defined precisely. The "self-evident" part comes in comparing the results of the test to the defined criteria.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in knowing what you would accept as a definition of the criteria for success.
 
Lucianarchy said:


I would be interested in knowing what you would accept as a definition of the criteria for success.
Click to expand...

You're missing the a priori part. The point, at this stage, is not what they are exactly, but that they are defined precisely before testing begins. Some of the earlier stuides of mediumship were assailed because of granting "hits" to all manner of after-the-fact nonsense. That isn't science.

Cheers,
 
BillHoyt said:


You're missing the a priori part. The point, at this stage, is not what they are exactly, but that they are defined precisely before testing begins.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

Can you define, precisely, what the criteria of success should be before testing for the hypothesis begins;

Known scientific mechanisms can 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.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Can you define, precisely, what the criteria of success should be before testing for the hypothesis begins;

Known scientific mechanisms can 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.
Click to expand...

There's the answer: Get the tests done under conditions and protocols not under the research of Gary Schwartz. Reproducibilty by independent researchers with tightened protocols is an extremely important part of the scientific method.

In any case, its extremely unlikely that any of the above would agree to proper double-blind, forced choice scientific experiments such as we could design.
 
Diamond said:


There's the answer: Get the tests done under conditions and protocols not under the research of Gary Schwartz.
Click to expand...

If Dr Schwartz's protocols are as suspect as you seem to imply, then the scientific method would soon demonstrate these suppositions. Hence the hypothesis. You may hold the opinion that the protocols and controls are slack, that's why we're trying to get the input from people who could contribute to the planning of even better tests.

What would you want to change in the controls and protocols and why?
 
Lucianarchy said:


If Dr Schwartz's protocols are as suspect as you seem to imply, then the scientific method would soon demonstrate these suppositions. Hence the hypothesis. You may hold the opinion that the protocols and controls are slack, that's why we're trying to get the input from people who could contribute to the planning of even better tests.

What would you want to change in the controls and protocols and why?
Click to expand...

I would properly randomize the subjects with the mediums and blind the experimentor to which session came from which subject and which medium until after the judging is done. The judging should be done by a panel of scorers who neither know who the subject nor the medium is. I would also want a random sample of people who have not been recently bereaved or have had ony distant relatives as part of that pool.

I would also have a psychologist and a conjurer on hand to help design the protocol in order to minimize sensory leakage and a statisitician to work out where the threshold for success should be prior to the tests commencement.

I would want all the sessions video taped from hidden camera as well as the judging and the randomization. I would not allow the subjects or the mediums to score the results themselves. In fact, blindfolding the subjects so that they only hear the voice of the medium would be a useful requirement.

I would not allow any cohorts of the medium near any part of the experiment. I would expect that a random sample of twenty subjects be used from a pool of say, two hundred participants, and have those participants made sure to represent a normal cross-section of the population in terms of height, age, sex, race, creed.

I would publish the protocol beforehand to elicit suggestions for improvement and to ensure replicability with other groups wishing to study the same phenomenon.
 
Luci, you should go back and read this thread again. Pay particular attention to Stimpson's posts. Then answer my question:

Okay, so let's say we know what the "same results" are, and we know what the conditions and protocols are. So we pick some bozo off the street and have him use a "known scientific mechanism" for doing a reading, for example, cold reading (assuming that doesn't conflict with the conditions or protocols). What would it mean if he (a) got the same results; (b) didn't get the same results?

Diamond said:
The judging should be done by a panel of scorers who neither know who the subject nor the medium is.
Click to expand...
Then how do they score the readings?

I would not allow the subjects or the mediums to score the results themselves.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I would eliminate judging entirely. The sitter gets six readings and chooses the one he thinks is his. The only two people that know anything about the accuracy of the readings are the medium and the sitter.

But again, when we're done, what do we know?

~~ Paul
 
Diamond said:


I would properly randomize the subjects with the mediums and blind the experimentor to which session came from which subject and which medium until after the judging is done. The judging should be done by a panel of scorers who neither know who the subject nor the medium is. I would also want a random sample of people who have not been recently bereaved or have had ony distant relatives as part of that pool.

I would also have a psychologist and a conjurer on hand to help design the protocol in order to minimize sensory leakage and a statisitician to work out where the threshold for success should be prior to the tests commencement.

I would want all the sessions video taped from hidden camera as well as the judging and the randomization. I would not allow the subjects or the mediums to score the results themselves. In fact, blindfolding the subjects so that they only hear the voice of the medium would be a useful requirement.

I would not allow any cohorts of the medium near any part of the experiment. I would expect that a random sample of twenty subjects be used from a pool of say, two hundred participants, and have those participants made sure to represent a normal cross-section of the population in terms of height, age, sex, race, creed.

I would publish the protocol beforehand to elicit suggestions for improvement and to ensure replicability with other groups wishing to study the same phenomenon.
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing some constructive input here. Let's assume we use your protocol, and no known scientific method can be demonstrated which can replicate the results of the RMs, and let's say we get it peer reviewed in some major psychology journo's too, just for good measure.

Would that be OK?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Luci, you should go back and read this thread again. Pay particular attention to Stimpson's posts. Then answer my question:

Okay, so let's say we know what the "same results" are, and we know what the conditions and protocols are. So we pick some bozo off the street and have him use a "known scientific mechanism" for doing a reading, for example, cold reading (assuming that doesn't conflict with the conditions or protocols). What would it mean if he (a) got the same results; (b) didn't get the same results?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

(a). Would mean that a candidate for a KSM had demonstrated a KSM, or had been lucky.

(b). would mean a candidate for a KSM had failed to demonstrate a KSM, or had been unlucky.

The more trials you run the easier it becomes to make an informed decision as to whether the likelihood of a KSM or a 'normal' medium (as in means of communication) is, or is not responsible for the results. If it is not a likelihood, then the case for the information coming via a 'para' normal medium becomes stronger.

KSM - known scientific method
 
Lucianarchy said:


Thanks for providing some constructive input here. Let's assume we use your protocol, and no known scientific method can be demonstrated which can replicate the results of the RMs, and let's say we get it peer reviewed in some major psychology journo's too, just for good measure.

Would that be OK?
Click to expand...

"OK" in what sense? Since you've jumped from the hypothesis all the way to publication, I infer you to mean "would that settle the issue"? No. No single paper settles an issue.

Cheers,
 
Lucianarchy said:


Why of course, you were unable to quantify your claim.
Click to expand...

As I thought, you didn't understand it. Science doesn't work that way, Luci. The first paper to find a new, intriguing result is usually met with a collection of response papers. Each such paper takes a different tact. Some repeat the hypothesis, tighten the controls and try to replicate. Some offer an alternative hypothesis and alternative protocol. The results will not always agree. Then the next wave of papers begin, each refining the hypotheses or protocols. Finally, the protocol kinks get worked out. All the original flaws are smoothed out to an acceptable level and the papers begin to converge on an answer.

Cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom