Forbidden Science

[PixyMisa]

And yet, PEAR admits that they haven't really found anything.

More than that, they admit that their experimental and statistical methods are seriously flawed.

But then they discovered that rigorous controls and proper statistical analysis eliminated any positive results, so they decided not to do that. (Read the meta-analysis paper. That's what it says.)

 

[PixyMisa]

More recently, Edgar Cayce demonstrated conclusively the reality of psychic phenomena in the first half of the 20th Century

 

[LW]

The "utterly impossible" quote may have been picked up by Milton from the Internet, which earns him a demerit. However, if you bother to read Newcomb's 1903 article, he clearly believed that heavier than air flight was impossible in the foreseeable future.

How did you miss this one from the third page of the article:

Quite likely the twentieth century is destined to see the natural forces which will enable us to fly from continent to continent with a speed far exceeding that of the bird.

 

[Rodney]

And yet, PEAR admits that they haven't really found anything.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/shapesintheclouds.htm

Your skeptic's report picks a convenient strawman, rather than examining the great bulk of PEAR's tests. As this link -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html -- explains:

"The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examines anomalies arising in human/machine interactions. In these studies human operators attempt to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produce strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

"Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. 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. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition'."

One can safely assume your asessment of Cayce is equally over-optimistic.

Even if I were wrong about PEAR's research, that does not logically follow. You might try researching Cayce for yourself. If you do, you'll be one up on Randi.

 

[Rodney]

More than that, they admit that their experimental and statistical methods are seriously flawed.

But then they discovered that rigorous controls and proper statistical analysis eliminated any positive results, so they decided not to do that. (Read the meta-analysis paper. That's what it says.)

Here is what the abstract of the "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program" states:

"Strong correlations between output distribution means of a variety of random binary processes and prestated intentions of some 100 individual human operators have been established over a 12-year experimental program. More than 1000 experimental series, employing four different categories of random devices and several distinctive protocols, show comparable magnitudes of anomalous mean shifts from chance expectation, with similar distribution structures. Although the absolute effect sizes are quite small, of the order of 10 –4 bits deviation per bit processed, over the huge databases accumulated the composite effect exceeds 7? (p a 3.5 × 10 –13 ). These data display significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent serial position effects in individual and collective results. Data generated by operators far removed from the machines and exerting their efforts at times other than those of machine operation show similar effect sizes and structural details to those of the local, on-time experiments. Most other secondary parameters tested are found to have little effect on the scale and character of the results, with one important exception: studies performed using fully deterministic pseudorandom sources, either hard-wired or algorithmic, yield null overall mean shifts, and display no other anomalous features."

 

[kookbreaker]

Your skeptic's report picks a convenient strawman, rather than examining the great bulk of PEAR's tests. As this link -- http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html -- explains:

"The most substantial portion of the PEAR experimental program examines anomalies arising in human/machine interactions. In these studies human operators attempt to bias the output of a variety of mechanical, electronic, optical, acoustical, and fluid devices to conform to pre-stated intentions, without recourse to any known physical influences. In unattended calibrations all of these sophisticated machines produce strictly random data, yet the experimental results display increases in information content that can only be attributed to the consciousness of their human operators.

"Over the laboratory’s 27-year history, thousands of such experiments, involving many millions of trials, have been performed by several hundred operators. 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. These results are summarized in 'Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention' and 'The PEAR Proposition'."

That's nice. So why did they admit that their work has not produced anything above chance levels.

Even if I were wrong about PEAR's research, that does not logically follow. You might try researching Cayce for yourself. If you do, you'll be one up on Randi.

Oh, I might then know more about what a con-artist he was than Randi? Possible I suppose.

Cayce hasn't produced diddley-squat for decent evidence. Just more woowoo junk.

 

[Rodney]

How did you miss this one from the third page of the article:

I didn't miss it; it's irrelevant. Newcomb unequivocally believed that heavier than air flight was impossible given the technology that existed in 1903. What he was talking about there was the possibility that such flight could eventually take place many years in the future given a quantum leap in technology. No such leap was needed.

 

[Rodney]

That's nice. So why did they admit that their work has not produced anything above chance levels.

3.5 × 10 –13 is not above the chance level?

Oh, I might then know more about what a con-artist he was than Randi? Possible I suppose.

Cayce hasn't produced diddley-squat for decent evidence. Just more woowoo junk.

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

 

[kookbreaker]

I didn't miss it; it's irrelevant. Newcomb unequivocally believed that heavier than air flight was impossible given the technology that existed in 1903. What he was talking about there was the possibility that such flight could eventually take place many years in the future given a quantum leap in technology.

Interesting that he states categoricly that he beleives that such technology would come avaialble in the 20th century. Wheras that skeptical doubter Orville Wright predicted scientificly that Man would not fly for another thousand years. WHy is Newcomb taken to task for his relative optimism?

No such leap was needed.

No it was not. As I pointed out Newcomb was woefully ignorant of IC engine technology. The fact that the Wright's had to have a very carefully built special IC engine to boot it is easy to see how such an oversight could be made. Predicting technology is always a nasty game to play, but it is a far cry from declaring that Flying Machines are Impossible as Milton claims.

Incidently, some folks might want to go look at Milton's brief forays into USENET around 2000 or so. He really made quite a show of ignorance in that little display, as bad as he was taken to task for his ineptness on the Wright brothers, he got reamed for his ignorance surrounding Galileo.

 

[kookbreaker]

3.5 × 10 –13 is not above the chance level?

Its pretty fracking weak, actually. Do you understand those numbers?

Why did they admit to having levels no better than chance?

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

oooh! Like Posidea rising in 1968?

 

[PixyMisa]

Acutally, that's PEAR's calculated probability that it happened by chance, so what they are saying is that it is very very unlikely.

What Rodney doesn't mention is that the meta-analysis paper admits that both their experimental design and their statistical methods were suspect, and that when they corrected for this, all positive results disappeared.

 

[PixyMisa]

How do you know if you haven't examined Cayce's documented record?

What in Cayce's documented record is other than woowoo junk?

 

[Ladewig]

What in Cayce's documented record is other than woowoo junk?

Rodney, how's chances of answering this question in a new thread? I think Cayce deserves his own thread.

 

[Rodney]

Acutally, that's PEAR's calculated probability that it happened by chance, so what they are saying is that it is very very unlikely.

Yes. P = 3.5 x 10^-13 means that there is a probability of only 1 in 35 trillion of the results happening by chance.

What Rodney doesn't mention is that the meta-analysis paper admits that both their experimental design and their statistical methods were suspect, and that when they corrected for this, all positive results disappeared.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please supply an excerpt from the paper.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, how's chances of answering this question in a new thread? I think Cayce deserves his own thread.

I agree, and as a matter of fact there already is one. It's titled "Edgar Cayce - for real, or a lucky guesser?" in the General Skepticism and The Paranormal category. I have made several posts in that thread, with the last one on December 16, 2005. No one responded to my last post, and so perhaps PixyMisa can have the honor.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please supply an excerpt from the paper.

There was a detailed discussion of the PEAR meta-analysis paper on these forums about three years ago. I posted one lengthy item that dissected the paper; there were quite a lot of other good posts.

Unfortunately, the whole thing was lost in the Great Purge, and all you can find now is references to the original threads. I know someone kept copies of some of the posts, though, so maybe they will comment here.

Right now I can't even download the paper, but I'll try again later.

Edit: Found it! But it was not so lengthy as all that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Aha! Yes, Ed saved a copy of it and re-posted it in a later thread.

But everything you need to know is contained in this one short quote from the paper:

Yet, like so much of the research in consciousness-related anomalies, replication, enhancement, and interpretation of these results proved elusive. As the program advanced and the analytical techniques became more sophisticated, the empirical results became weaker. It appeared as if each subsequent refinement of the analytical process, intended to improve the quality and reliability of the “information net,” had resulted in a reduction of the amount of raw information being captured. This diminution of the experimental yield prompted extensive examination of numerous factors that could have contributed to it, but after exploring and precluding various possible sources of statistical or procedural artifact, we concluded that the cause of the problem most likely lay somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience.

As I said at the time:

In other words:

1. We performed an experiment with lousy controls and indifferent analytical methods and got a strong positive result.
2. Every time we tighten the controls or refine the analysis, the result gets statistically weaker.
3. Therefore the problem lies "somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience".

Ignoring the First Rule of Holes, they went on:

As we pondered this paradox, we became cognizant of a number of subtler, less quantifiable factors that also might have had an inhibitory effect on the experiments, such as the laboratory ambience in which the experiments were being conducted. For example, during the period in which the FIDO data were being generated, we were distracted by the need to invest a major effort in preparing a rebuttal to an article critical of PEAR’s PRP program. Most of the issues raised therein were irrelevant, incorrect, or already had been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere, and had been shown to be inadequate to account for the observed effects. Notwithstanding, preparation of a systematic refutation deflected a disproportionate amount of attention from, and dampened the enthusiasm for, the experiments being carried out during that time. Beyond this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually. Neither can they be interpreted easily.

My response:

In other words: While we were busy addressing our previous stuff-ups, our latest experiment went to Hell. Further, tight experimental control places "unnecessary constraints" on our research, and this "intangible factor" is inhibiting the "phenomena under study".

 

[Rodney]

Aha! Yes, Ed saved a copy of it and re-posted it in a later thread.

But everything you need to know is contained in this one short quote from the paper:

As I said at the time:

In other words:

1. We performed an experiment with lousy controls and indifferent analytical methods and got a strong positive result.
2. Every time we tighten the controls or refine the analysis, the result gets statistically weaker.
3. Therefore the problem lies "somewhere in the subjective sphere of the experience".

Ignoring the First Rule of Holes, they went on:

My response:

In other words: While we were busy addressing our previous stuff-ups, our latest experiment went to Hell. Further, tight experimental control places "unnecessary constraints" on our research, and this "intangible factor" is inhibiting the "phenomena under study".

The prior thread was discussing a different PEAR paper. I suggest you read the paper that I referenced: "Correlations of Random Binary Sequences with Pre-Stated Operator Intention: A Review of a 12-Year Program." The summary of that paper states:

"The extensive databases described above, comprising more than 1500 complete experimental series generated over a period of 12 years in rigid tripolar protocols by over 100 unselected human operators using several random digital processors, display the following salient features:

1. Strong statistical correlations between the means of the output distributions and the pre-recorded intentions of the operators appear in virtually all of the experiments using random sources.
2. Such correlations are not found in those experiments using deterministic pseudorandom sources.
3. The overall scale of the anomalous mean shifts are of the order of 10^–4 bits per bit processed which, over the full composite database, compounds to a statistical deviation of more than 7 sigma (p a 3.5 × 10^ –13 ).
4. While characteristic distinctions among individual operator performances are difficult to confirm analytically, a number of significant differences between female and male operator performance are demonstrable.
5. The series score distributions and the count population distributions in both the collective and individual operator data are consistent with chance distributions based on slightly altered binary probabilities.
6. Oscillatory series position patterns in collective and individual operator performance appear in much of the data, complicating the replication criteria.
7. Experiments performed by operators far removed from the devices, or exerting their intentions at times other than that of device operation, yield results of comparable scale and character to those of the local, on-time experiments. Such remote, off-time results have been demonstrated on all of the random sources.
8. Appropriate internal consistency, and inter-experiment and inter-laboratory replicability of the generic features of these anomalous results have been established.
9. A much broader range of random-source experiments currently in progress display a similar scale and character of anomalous results."

 

[UrsulaV]

But ya know, no matter how many experimental controls one slaps or doesn't slap on PEAR, and no matter how many times Cayce predicted Atlantis rising, Venus still isn't a comet.

Y'ever gonna address the point about Velikovsky, Rodney, or are you still just defending anything that science considers crackpot because the crackpot theory of my enemy's enemy is my friend?

 

[Rodney]

But ya know, no matter how many experimental controls one slaps or doesn't slap on PEAR, and no matter how many times Cayce predicted Atlantis rising, Venus still isn't a comet.

Y'ever gonna address the point about Velikovsky, Rodney, or are you still just defending anything that science considers crackpot because the crackpot theory of my enemy's enemy is my friend?

Velikovsky is only peripherally relevant to this thread. As far as I can tell, the author of "Forbidden Science" -- Richard Milton -- never mentions him on Milton's website -- http://www.alternativescience.com

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone who is treated contemptuously by mainstream scientists must be on to something of importance, but why do so many mainstream scientists have such contempt? Could it possibly be that they are insecure and are worried that their most cherished beliefs are flat out wrong?