Ganzfeld million dollar challange?

[Dancing David]

Ganzfeld has been subjected to intense peer review to look for flaws. As long as the targets are randomly selected and randomly presented and there is no sensory leakage then there is no other reasonable explanation but psi.

And as for the question about what you call the control group my answer is I would expect it to be biased to whatever was listed as target even if there is no sender. Telepathy is not the only type of psi. If there was no correct choice then I would expect a bias towards the first option shown, but if this is done on a real test it only gets 25% correct.

Not unless you control for selection bias in samples of the auto ganzfeld, all pictures of a set have to be matched for selection bias so that all sets have equal selection bias in the set and between sets.

And you have to show that there was a random distribution as well. In any run you can get a predominace of a certain number of sets, if those sets have selection bias and the picture with teh selection bias has a higher occurance is subject to selection bias, that will skew the results.

In this case the safer protocol would be to go through each picture and each set one time. That way you ensure that each picture does occur in tehs ample the same number of times.

 

[Ersby]

Then you throw out the studies that did not make sure that there were multiple copies of the same target in each set. (Which I haven't seen a protocol that even includes this criteria yet.) So show me where this effect is controlled for, it wasn't in any of the protocols that I could find.

The target sets are put together before the experiment begins, not chosen at random before each trial. A lot of the experiments describe how each set of four is designed so that the four pictures are as different, thematically, as possible.

 

[Rodney]

That's very disappointing, Rodney. I really want to believe that you are sincere and not simply ********ting. Yet this pretense that you haven't already been given this information, from me, several times already, makes it very difficult.

Linda

I guess that this is your day to be disappointed. However, the article that you keep pointing me to -- http://www.csicop.org/sb/2002-12/reality-check.html -- has little or no relevance to the alleged Ganzfeld file drawer problem. The author of that article, Victor Stenger, correctly notes that the reported results of ESP card guessing tests do not prove the existence of psi because many negative results may simply have not been reported. However, with respect to Ganzfeld experiments, that is not plausible for two reasons:

(1) There are only a handful of Ganzfeld researchers. Who is it, exactly, that is risking his/her professional reputation by not reporting results? And how many Ganzfeld experiments are undertaken with no knowledge by other researchers that they are being carried out? Do Ganzfeld researchers have cover stories when they are conducting experiments and then publicly announce positive results while surreptitiously discarding negative ones? (I recognize that Ersby contends that there are a number of known Ganzfeld experiments that used other than hit/miss protocols whose results are not included in Radin's meta-analysis, but that is a different issue. However, I still would like to hear more from Ersby about those experiments and what the overall findings were.)

(2) The results of many negative Ganzfeld experiments have, in fact, been reported. Consider Milton's and Wiseman's article. They analyzed the results of 30 experiments, 14 of which produced actual or imputed hit rates of 25% or less. It is for that reason, I'm quite sure, that they felt confident that the overall p value would be statistically insignificant. But, as I have already noted, their statistical analysis was flawed, and when that analysis is done correctly, the results are indeed significant, despite the 14 negative experiments.

So, if you want to convince me that there is a Ganzfeld file drawer problem, you're going to have to point me to a different article than Stenger's (which, by the way, never even mentions Ganzfeld experiments).

 

[Ersby]

I recognize that Ersby contends that there are a number of known Ganzfeld experiments that used other than hit/miss protocols whose results are not included in Radin's meta-analysis, but that is a different issue. However, I still would like to hear more from Ersby about those experiments and what the overall findings were.

The bit in bold is wrong. Most of the experiments missing from Radin's m-a also used direct hits.

It is for that reason, I'm quite sure, that they felt confident that the overall p value would be statistically insignificant.

Can you be quite sure that Radin was also confident over the overall p value of his meta-analysis?

Consider Radin's m-a from 1997. He chose:
a) Honorton's meta-analysis
b) the PRL results
c) results from Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Cornell, Rhine, Utrecht and Gothenburg

In other words, he knew the results of most of experiments he was putting into the meta-analysis. He does write in The Conscious Universe that a scan of relevant literature was also undertaken, but seeing as how he managed to miss every single experiment not in the categories listed above, I'm not confident about how thorough that scan was.

The Entangled Minds m-a is simply an updated version, so the same flaws apply.

To be sure, though, if anyone can scan the funnel plot from TEM and email it to me, and I can put see if it's possible to put together Radin's database from that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Actually it is, first off you will throw out all the studies that do not use a random number generator to pick the picture, which is a big chunk.
Then you throw out the studies that did not make sure that there were multiple copies of the same target in each set. (Which I haven't seen a protocol that even includes this criteria yet.) So show me where this effect is controlled for, it wasn't in any of the protocols that I could find.

And don't forget to randomize the order in which the targets are presented since a bias was seen there as well.

 

[andy2001]

The file drawer issue.


“Furthermore, a 1980 survey of parapsychologists by the skeptical British psychologist Susan Blackmore had confirmed that the file-drawer problem was not a serious issue for the ganzfeld meta-analysis. Blackmore uncovered nineteen complete but unpublished ganzfeld studies. Of those nineteen, seven were independently successful with odds against chance of twenty to one or greater. Thus while some ganzfeld studies had not been published, Hyman and Honorton agreed that selective reporting was not an important issue in this database.”

page 44
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

 

[Rodney]

The bit in bold is wrong. Most of the experiments missing from Radin's m-a also used direct hits.

This contradicts Radin's assertion that his meta-analysis of 1974-2004 Ganzfeld experiments excluded only "a few of the earliest ganzfeld studies that couldn't be evaluated with a hit vs. miss type of analysis." So, how many experiments covering how many trials did Radin exclude? And how many of those trials used a hit vs. miss type of analysis?

 

[remirol]

Since nobody on the Ganzfeld side appears inclined to address this post, is it safe to assume that this thread is no longer seriously about the Million Dollar Challenge and should be moved to General Skepticism/Paranormal?

I mean, seriously. All the Ganzfeld researchers have to do is apply. The rest is discussions over protocol, but none of it is appropriate until one of these researchers actually _applies_ for the MDC.

 

[Ersby]

This contradicts Radin's assertion that his meta-analysis of 1974-2004 Ganzfeld experiments excluded only "a few of the earliest ganzfeld studies that couldn't be evaluated with a hit vs. miss type of analysis."

Yes it does.

So, how many experiments covering how many trials did Radin exclude? And how many of those trials used a hit vs. miss type of analysis?

I'll need a scan of the funnel plot to properly answer that question.

Since nobody on the Ganzfeld side appears inclined to address this post, is it safe to assume that this thread is no longer seriously about the Million Dollar Challenge and should be moved to General Skepticism/Paranormal?

I mean, seriously. All the Ganzfeld researchers have to do is apply. The rest is discussions over protocol, but none of it is appropriate until one of these researchers actually _applies_ for the MDC.

Good point re. being a discussion about the MDC.

As has been said, the ganzfeld is too cumbersom a process to be feasible. The only way would be to increase the odds of a hit per trail, eg give them a 1 in 10 chance of being correct instead of 1 in 4. Trouble is, when they've done that in the past, the results haven't been as good.

 

[Cuddles]

Since the questions regarding Ganzfeld as related to the MDC have been answered and the discussion is now just about Ganzfeld in general, thread closed.

Isn't it odd that no-one's posting in this thread which was started specifically for this discussion?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles