Ganzfeld million dollar challange?

[fls]

But even if anyone where to apply to Randi with an experiment set up with 0.8 power for what ever p value he was looking for based on the results of the studies mentioned you appear to think this would be a waste of time because the effect size is to small.

I'm saying that the MDC works well to test obvious effects, but it's not a good choice for testing smaller effects. The MDC would also be a poor choice for most of the medical research that takes place nowadays. It's simply the wrong setting.

It makes more sense, if someone is interested in the ganzfeld, to run a proper experiment in a more appropriate setting, than to try and make a square peg fit a round hole.

Linda

 

[andy2001]

But they have the benefit of control groups, which eliminates bias as an alternate explanation.
Linda

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

 

[andy2001]

I'm saying that the MDC works well to test obvious effects, but it's not a good choice for testing smaller effects.

Linda

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.
Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

 

[wardenclyffe]

I would be willing to guess that if someone bothered to apply for the MDC with a Ganzfeld claim, and that applicant were willing to pay the millions of dollars that would probably be required to mount a proper test, something could easily be worked out. That applicant might even win Randi's million after spending all that money. I'm more of a bargain shopper and would try to come up with a claim that's provable for less than a million. That way, I'd come out ahead.

Ward

 

[fls]

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

The baseline in medical studies includes those other things that lead to differences from chance, like various biases. The problem is that the ganzfeld studies haven't always operated at chance. It's easier to establish a realistic baseline with a control group than to try and achieve a perfect baseline.

Linda

 

[fls]

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.

Is it? I would have guessed that scientists wouldn't pay that much attention to it.

Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

Really? Why would it occur to scientists that this is the proper place to test their ideas?

Linda

 

[Gr8wight]

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.
Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

Ah! once again we come to it: you clearly have no idea what the Million Dollar Challenge, or why it exists. The MDC is never used as evidence that there is no such thing as PSI. The MDC is only used as evidence that, to date, no one who claims to be able to demonstrate PSI has successfully been able to do so. This is at the center of why Rodney's argument is flawed. The MDC only deals with claims made by applicants for the MDC. No one, to date, has applied to the MDC using a Ganzfeld type of test, so the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge makes no commentary on the Ganzfeld.

Sure, Randi has commented on the Ganzfeld before, but Randi is not The JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. He exists as a separate entity.

 

[andy2001]

Is it? I would have guessed that scientists wouldn't pay that much attention to it.

Linda

I was talking about average Joe, not scientists.

 

[Uncayimmy]

No. A 30% hit rate in 2,000 trials would defy odds of about 1 in 4.3 million.

To be very clear here, it would indicate with great confidence that the events that took place were not entirely random. Since we have humans making subjective judgments in Ganzfeld, we already know that things are not random. For example, when choosing a picture, people will probably be likely to pick pictures that appeal to them for some reason. It could aesthetics. It could be that it reminds them of something familiar. They could eliminate pictures because they don't like them. The only way humans can randomly choose a picture is to use something that is random to make the choice for them.

Therefore, it is foolish (yes, foolish) to claim the deviation from random is due to ESP.

If you want to get excited about such a small deviation, you at least need a control. That is, randomly determine if the sender is going to send or not, but don't tell the receiver. He cannot know this. While you're at it, add a fifth option: Nothing. Then compare the success rates. If I see 20% (5 options now) when the sender does nothing and 25% when the sender sends something, I'll probably sit up and pay some attention.

On top of all that, analyze every picture the receiver selected to see if there's a patten. For example, if the person likes the color blue, they might have a tendency to select photos with blue in them. So, what percentage of the photos have blue? Proper analysis could show that blue was at work, not ESP.

 

[Uncayimmy]

You need control groups in medical studies to rule out the placebo affect, and establish the base line for chance. For Psi you just need a properly designed test which has been peer reviewed to check for sensory leaks. You already know what score is chance.

Actually, you don't. I contend that it is impossible for a subjective human to mentally make choices at random without relying on something else that's actually random (coins, dice).

 

[Rodney]

To be very clear here, it would indicate with great confidence that the events that took place were not entirely random. Since we have humans making subjective judgments in Ganzfeld, we already know that things are not random. For example, when choosing a picture, people will probably be likely to pick pictures that appeal to them for some reason. It could aesthetics. It could be that it reminds them of something familiar. They could eliminate pictures because they don't like them. The only way humans can randomly choose a picture is to use something that is random to make the choice for them.

Therefore, it is foolish (yes, foolish) to claim the deviation from random is due to ESP.

If you want to get excited about such a small deviation, you at least need a control. That is, randomly determine if the sender is going to send or not, but don't tell the receiver. He cannot know this. While you're at it, add a fifth option: Nothing. Then compare the success rates. If I see 20% (5 options now) when the sender does nothing and 25% when the sender sends something, I'll probably sit up and pay some attention.

On top of all that, analyze every picture the receiver selected to see if there's a patten. For example, if the person likes the color blue, they might have a tendency to select photos with blue in them. So, what percentage of the photos have blue? Proper analysis could show that blue was at work, not ESP.

The issues you're talking about have been accounted for, as I noted in post #106 on this thread: " . . . even skeptic Ray Hyman concedes that 'the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.'"

 

[Moochie]

But the MDC is regularly used as evidence that there is there is no such thing a PSI.
Despite strong evidence from multiple tests in labs all over the world with different protocols. If such tests are not eligible for the prize I find this very deceptive and a con.

And don't most scientists, and the wider community in general, laugh at this "strong evidence"? Radin et all continue to chase this chimera because they have their entire lives invested in it. For most of them to now turn around and admit that they're chasing shadows would be professional suicide.


M.

 

[jojonete]

I would say that you have twenty people do ten trials each. Then you have two hundred trials.
This could be replicated 10 times (at different sites) for 2,000.

The issues remain, can people do the Ganzfeld at the same time? Or do they have to be seperate runs? When they ran the ganzfeld in the past did they put 10 people sending and ten people receiving at teh same time? That way you could run the twenty trials in four hours. With seperate runs you then have like 40 hours.

Rodney suggested 40 minutes per trial, however the page linked to by andy2001 says "One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours". Also, I suggested 6 trials per day, however andy2001's link says "Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day".

Now, even assuming 20 people with simultaneous trials, 40 minutes per trial and no breaks between trials, I can't see how your calculations can arrive at such a short time as 40 hours. Each person will have to do 100 trials (in 10 rounds of 10 or whatever). 100 times 40 minutes is 66 hours and 40 minutes.

Of course, given what andy2001's link says, we clearly should limit things to 1 trial per day per test subject. With 20 subjects that would be 100 days. Now, every single trial (of the 2000) will need at the very least 4 persons: a sender, a receiver, an observer at the sender's location and an observer at the receiver's location. This means having at least 80 people "tied" to the test for more than 3 months. I'll leave open the question about how "realistic" this sounds.

Now, using 20 different receivers for an MDC test (and I'm always speaking from the point of view of a hypothetical MDC test) raises another issue: some are going to score better than others, and the best scoring ones are going to be called "real" by Ganzfeld proponents.

To show this, I actually wrote a VBS script simulating 2000 trials and using pseudo-random numbers as results. In total I got 486 hits, i.e. a failure (success is defined as 600 or more). However, making 20 groups of 100 trials each there's an impressive subject #17 with 34 hits, while all others are 28 or less. To Ganzfeld proponents, this would surely be considered clear evidence that subject #17 was really receiving transmissions while all others were just receiving garbage or imagining results (maybe due to the lack of cooperation from experimenters).

 

[fls]

I was talking about average Joe, not scientists.

I don't think the average Joe would pay much attention to it either if the presence of psi was generally accepted by scientists (not just by scientists who are believers).

Linda

 

[andy2001]

Actually, you don't. I contend that it is impossible for a subjective human to mentally make choices at random without relying on something else that's actually random (coins, dice).

The person can have a non random way of picking such as always choosing the first target, or preferring red targets. But if targets are presented randomly the chance score is 25%.

 

[andy2001]

I don't think the average Joe would pay much attention to it either if the presence of psi was generally accepted by scientists (not just by scientists who are believers).

Linda

How would a scientist accept it without believing it?
Most scientists who have done sufficient research into the matter do accept it.
Most scientists who have not are not known for the view on it.

 

[Rodney]

To show this, I actually wrote a VBS script simulating 2000 trials and using pseudo-random numbers as results. In total I got 486 hits, i.e. a failure (success is defined as 600 or more).

So how do you explain the fact that 3145 standard ganzfeld trials conducted during 1974-2004 resulted in 1008 hits (32% hit rate)?

 

[fls]

How would a scientist accept it without believing it?

The usual way. They are presented with persuasive evidence.

Most scientists who have done sufficient research into the matter do accept it.

Do they? I find it hard to tell. There are parapsychologists or ex-parapsychologists who don't accept it. Cj, who is familiar with the literature, says that the parapsychology journals are full of criticisms about the results of various studies.

I'm not a parapsychologist. I'm a medical doctor with experience in designing research studies and in analysis. I've read a lot of the studies, and I've read sources that are pointed to as making the best case for psi. I use my own experience and knowledge to analyze the results, but I don't know how much dissent there is within the field.

Most scientists who have not are not known for the view on it.

I can't really parse this sentence.

Scientists from other fields that should be interested in the findings from parapsychology don't seem to find the results compelling enough to stimulate further research on their part.

Linda

 

[andy2001]

The usual way. They are presented with persuasive evidence

Yes and many have done. But at this point they would believe in it. This would them put them in a category whose opinions you ignore.

Scientists from other fields that should be interested in the findings from parapsychology don't seem to find the results compelling enough to stimulate further research on their part.

Linda

This may explain something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

 

[fls]

Yes and many have done. But at this point they would believe in it. This would them put them in a category whose opinions you ignore.

I'm sorry. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that some people are persuaded? I would agree with that. But whose opinions would I ignore?

This may explain something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

I listened to part of that. I will probably have to listen to it in bits and pieces because it's quite long. However, I have read quite a lot of stuff from Radin on that topic, and I didn't hear anything new in the part that I heard. The problem is that I look up and read references, and I am able to understand the technical aspects. Plus I have worked within academia so I have first-hand experience of the culture. This means that I don't have to depend upon his presentation of the information in order to understand or evaluate the validity of his ideas.

Linda