Haunted Place

[Ashles]

Ashles, will you hereby agree that if the a successful replication of these experiments is performed, you will accept that psi is real?

I'm not going to suddenly accept the existence of psi based on just 2 experiments (and you knew that anyway) anymore than you would disbelieve its existence if the replication showed no difference from chance.
I would say that it would have provided more evidence towards demonstrating the effect.

And if that makes me entrenched in my world-view then I challenge you to find anyone who would radically change their belief in Psi based on one repeated experiment.
It certainly wouldn't make the text books based on that. It wouldn't be considered an existing effect by the scientific world based just on two experiments.

What is specifically wrong with his experiments? Right now you have nothing to justify what you are saying. I think it is you who really wants Bem to have fiddled the results. Take an objective look at your beliefs.

Can anyone do that? By definition looking at my beliefs will be subjective. I could equally ask you to look at yours.
I believe there is a flaw in this experiment based on the previous history of research into the paranormal and the consistently non-existent results.
I could, of course, be totally wrong. But until there is evidence to dissuade me I will continue thinking that.
What would it take to persuade you that Psi really doesn't exist?

Probably for the same reasons that you or Randi have not tried it. I guess this is the first time you have read about this experiment? Perhaps if sceptics stopped concentrating on laughing at the Silvia Brownes of the world we might get much further in the debate.

What a weird question. What's this got to do with me or Randi? Randi doesn't do scientific experiments - he requests much larger effects so as not to get involved in disputes over tiny effects.
And I am not a researcher in the Paranormal. Why would I perform such a test?
Why haven't you for that matter?
That was a fairly ludicrous answer to my question as to why this hasn't been replicated.

It's only 2% deviation if you look at the whole set of data for each stimulus type. Further down the paper the experiments get more interesting in that the high scoring individuals are the ones that find the stimuli most affective, according to various psychological scoring methods. This would indicate that further replications should screen participants to get a larger effect.

Well can someone test it and see? You have made a testable prediction that would yield increased effects of Psi in further experiments. An excellent theory.
Why does no-one seem interested in pursuing this?

 

[davidsmith73]

I'm not going to suddenly accept the existence of psi based on just 2 experiments (and you knew that anyway) anymore than you would disbelieve its existence if the replication showed no difference from chance.
I would say that it would have provided more evidence towards demonstrating the effect.

How many replications then?

And if that makes me entrenched in my world-view then I challenge you to find anyone who would radically change their belief in Psi based on one repeated experiment.
It certainly wouldn't make the text books based on that. It wouldn't be considered an existing effect by the scientific world based just on two experiments.

Not really just two experiments but a series of experiments by two independent investigators. Bem performed many different experiments that repeatedly confirmed his hypotheses. I think the main point of asking for replications here is to reduce fraud and data fiddling as an explanation.

Can anyone do that? By definition looking at my beliefs will be subjective. I could equally ask you to look at yours.

Yes, and when I look at mine I find that my acceptance of psi is based on what experiments have shown us. Your rejection of psi seems to be on the basis that any positive experiment is in error or is fraudulent, whether it is or not. You just fall back on what you want to believe rather than basing your view on what the experiments actually show us.

I believe there is a flaw in this experiment based on the previous history of research into the paranormal and the consistently non-existent results.

Voila. Every positive experiment is assumed to contain a flaw based on the fact that flaws exist in previous experiments that are completely different and were conducted by different experimenters.

Precisely what flaws do you see in this experiment?

I could, of course, be totally wrong. But until there is evidence to dissuade me I will continue thinking that.

Would this evidence to dissuade you be replications of this experiment?

What would it take to persuade you that Psi really doesn't exist?

When the number of positive psi experiments compared to the number of negative experiments is at chance. At the moment there are simply too many positive experiments with sound methodology.

What a weird question. What's this got to do with me or Randi? Randi doesn't do scientific experiments - he requests much larger effects so as not to get involved in disputes over tiny effects.
And I am not a researcher in the Paranormal. Why would I perform such a test?
Why haven't you for that matter?
That was a fairly ludicrous answer to my question as to why this hasn't been replicated.

One reason why you or Randi haven't taken to becoming scientists who perform replications of psi experiments is why most other people are not doing it. You simply do not think there is an effect to study. So why would you bother performing an experiment! It would certainly not be to prove believers wrong because you know you are right already. Also, since you have absolutely no interest in performing a psi experiment then it's likely that you would not be aware of the progress in the field. You obviously had not come across the Bem experiments before, yet you are a regular on this site which claims to be an educational resource on the paranormal but this site has no links to any psi experiments (except on the formum, mostly posted by "believers").

I haven't because I don't have the resources. I would if I could believe me.

Well can someone test it and see? You have made a testable prediction that would yield increased effects of Psi in further experiments. An excellent theory.
Why does no-one seem interested in pursuing this?

People are testing it as the paper says. Be patient! After all, there are few who are actually prepared to find the truth rather than fall back on comfortable, probably false and untested explanations for some paranormal phenomena. But of course, anyone who actual performs replications and get positive results will be seen as bised "believers" by you. Not many people seem interested in pursuing this probably because they have the same attitude as you.

 

[Ashles]

How many replications then?

Oh ... four. That's the internationally accepted standard isn't it? Oh wait - there isn't one.
You have a very weird attitude to science if you think that after x number of replications something is automatically accepted as fact.
There is no magic number.
Let's just say we are nowhere near yet.

I haven't because I don't have the resources. I would if I could believe me.

What? You have a computer don't you? The whole point of this experiment is that it is very simple to do. All you need is a faily simple programme (surely you could get hold of it if you really wanted to), some time and some volunteers.
If I really wanted to I could perform this experiment (or many others).

Voila. Every positive experiment is assumed to contain a flaw based on the fact that flaws exist in previous experiments that are completely different and were conducted by different experimenters.

There are criticisms of all the experiments (as you well know). I am waiting for parapsychologists to unequvocably demonstrate an effect, which HAS NOT HAPPENED YET - deny it all you want, but this is a very simple fact.

One reason why you or Randi haven't taken to becoming scientists who perform replications of psi experiments is why most other people are not doing it. You simply do not think there is an effect to study. So why would you bother performing an experiment! It would certainly not be to prove believers wrong because you know you are right already. Also, since you have absolutely no interest in performing a psi experiment then it's likely that you would not be aware of the progress in the field.

It may be why Randi and I arent doing it, but many people are researching this. However after years of failed results it seems many scientists feel they have better things to spend their research time on.
The make it sound (like believers often do) like there is a big conspiracy going on. There isn't - it is just a stagnant field of little interest to the vast majority of scientists.
However this is not to say that a great breakthrough might be made, but why should the majority of scientists spend their time researching a fild they don't believe will yield any useful results?
It will be down to those believers to create a scientifically solid way of demonstrating them that can be replicated and analysed and used to predict further results.

Maybe the Bem experiment will turn out to prvide that evidence.

But as it stands this is your obsession not mine. I haven't read all the studies in the area and can only know about them if I am told.
It has certainly not been mentioned with the same fanfare that Ganzfeld has (indeed this is the first reference I have found to it).

You obviously had not come across the Bem experiments before, yet you are a regular on this site which claims to be an educational resource on the paranormal but this site has no links to any psi experiments

Why should it? Any more than it should have links to dowsing sites or homeopathy sites.
As has been stated repeatedly (but you choose to ignore this) psi is not considered scientific fact, or even likely to exist by the majority of scientists.

We await future changes in this situation.

 

[davidsmith73]

Oh ... four. That's the internationally accepted standard isn't it? Oh wait - there isn't one.
You have a very weird attitude to science if you think that after x number of replications something is automatically accepted as fact.
There is no magic number.
Let's just say we are nowhere near yet.

I'm asking your opinion on how many replications it would take to convince you. You can refuse to answer if you wish, but I'll assume that's because you don't want to commit to any possibility that you might be wrong.

What? You have a computer don't you?
The whole point of this experiment is that it is very simple to do. All you need is a faily simple programme (surely you could get hold of it if you really wanted to), some time and some volunteers.
If I really wanted to I could perform this experiment (or many others).

I don't have a computer of my own. But yes, I suppose I could do the experiment if I tried hard enough. So could you. Shall we both perform independent replication attempts?

There are criticisms of all the experiments (as you well know).

Yes but it is often the case that criticisms are invalid. From the Parker and Brusewitz paper -

Irwin Child (1985) published an article in which he detailed the false and fictitious nature of many of criticisms leveled against the Maimonides work:

Child, I. L. (1985), Psychology and anomalous observations. The Question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

False and fictitious criticisms are often seen on this forum too.

I am waiting for parapsychologists to unequvocably demonstrate an effect, which HAS NOT HAPPENED YET - deny it all you want, but this is a very simple fact.

No, that's your opinion. It's clear that your opinion is based on a desire for psi experiments to be explained by fraud or method error regardless of how likely either explanation actually is. You still haven't identified a single flaw in the Bem paper but you still think the results are due to error or data fiddling. Sad.

It may be why Randi and I arent doing it, but many people are researching this.

There's not really many. As the Parker and Brusewitz paper says:

The argument that a hundred years of research has not achieved this and therefore the phenomena have to be false, is built on a misconception: the research resources of parapsychology are
equivalent to a mere two months of research in American psychology and these resources have been nearly exclusively devoted to research aimed at the accumulation of evidence rather than process-orientated research (Schouten, 1998).

However after years of failed results it seems many scientists feel they have better things to spend their research time on.

Hang on, which researchers are you talking about who have left the field due to failed experiments? I can think of Susan Blackmore but that's just one. Who else? Come on Ashles, I want names.

The make it sound (like believers often do) like there is a big conspiracy going on. There isn't - it is just a stagnant field of little interest to the vast majority of scientists.

Exactly. There is no conspiracy. I never suggested there was. The reason very few replications of the Bem experiments have been attempted is that nobody has interest in doing the replications. The interesting thing is why they have little interest, because the results of the Bem experiments are clear cut and extremely indicative of anomalous cognition. I assume most other scientists who have come across the experiment think along the same lines as you - that there must be a flaw or that he has fiddled the results. It couldn't possibly be real psi! And so you relax back into your armchair.

However this is not to say that a great breakthrough might be made, but why should the majority of scientists spend their time researching a fild they don't believe will yield any useful results?

Precisely my point! No one thinks the experiments are worth doing. You've answered your own question as to why no one has performed replications of the Bem experiments yet.

However, the reasons why other scientists think the experiments are not worth replicating are a different thing altogether. It's not a conspiracy, just individual prejudice.

It will be down to those believers to create a scientifically solid way of demonstrating them that can be replicated and analysed and used to predict further results.

Been done. See the Parker and Brusewitz paper.

Why should it?

As an educational resource devoted to critical thinking the JREF should point people to the scientific basis of psi phenomena for people to examine, regardless of whether individual people within the JREF agree with the conclusions of the experiments.

 

[Ashles]

I'm asking your opinion on how many replications it would take to convince you. You can refuse to answer if you wish, but I'll assume that's because you don't want to commit to any possibility that you might be wrong.

I'll be convinced when it is considered scientifically likely to exist (i.e. not from the replication of one experiment).
You are being extremely disingenuous when you imply that someone should be convinced of something as groundbreaking as the existence of Psi on the result of a replication of this one experiment.
I have already allowed the possibilty I may be wrong in the above posts (something I note you refuse to do).

Shall we both perform independent replication attempts?

Again I am repeating myself in saying that thia is your obsession. I don't believe Psi exists so I am not going to spend a lot of my time trying to find it.
If it does exist it will be found by others who are more convinced it is worth looking for (you know, like how a lot of scientific discoveries are made).
Why don't you perform the replication and let us know how it goes?

Irwin Child (1985) published an article in which he detailed the false and fictitious nature of many of criticisms leveled against the Maimonides work:
Child, I. L. (1985), Psychology and anomalous observations. The Question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Well I don't have a link to that article at the moment so I can't actually read it. And you haven't exaplined what he is actually saying.
Other than that, very helpful.

No, that's your opinion. It's clear that your opinion is based on a desire for psi experiments to be explained by fraud or method error regardless of how likely either explanation actually is. You still haven't identified a single flaw in the Bem paper but you still think the results are due to error or data fiddling. Sad.

Ah the usual believers' lie - at last you resort to it. It's a 'desire' for there to be no psi I have is it?
Why on earth would I desire such a thing - it makes no sense. I spent years believing it did exist until experience and reading about all the failed psychics and failed tests disabused me of these beliefs.
Sad? I have believed in these things and subsequently changed my opinions an come to my own decisions about the likelihood of their existence. I am currently in agreement with what the scientific world believes and what has been demonstrated.
I have already changed my position on this subject. Do you honestly think it would be possible for you to David?

Hang on, which researchers are you talking about who have left the field due to failed experiments?

I didn't say the researchers who had the failed experiments had left the field. I was talking about scientists who don't enter the field in the first place because they feel they have better things to research.
Read it again.

I like your argument though:
People research Psi.
They get poor to no results.
Very few people continue to research it.
Occasionally someone gets something slightly statistically significant.
It is replicated and shows no results - Experimenter effect.
It is not replicated - The nasty sceptical scientists are spending their time doing other work when they should be testing Psi.

David, if Psi does exist it will eventually be demonstrated clearly. And I will read all the research avidly from that point onwards.
Until then I will continue to believe that Psi does not exist and that anyone conducting this research is wasting their time. That is my belief - it is not a claim of accuracy or a definitive truth, merely my opinion.

What you consider to be clear evidence has not convinced me or the scientific community at large.
No matter how good the evidence is for you personally, it is not yet good enough to be considered a demonstration of the existence of Psi.

 

[davidsmith73]

I'll be convinced when it is considered scientifically likely to exist (i.e. not from the replication of one experiment).
You are being extremely disingenuous when you imply that someone should be convinced of something as groundbreaking as the existence of Psi on the result of a replication of this one experiment.
I have already allowed the possibilty I may be wrong in the above posts (something I note you refuse to do).

I have stated that I'll be convinced psi is not a real effect when the number of positive experiments is in line with chance. Since that's not the case I'll just have to accept that there is a real effect. You haven't stated how many replications it would take to convince you. But of course, if you don't state this then it gives you a chance to move the goal posts.

If it does exist it will be found by others who are more convinced it is worth looking for (you know, like how a lot of scientific discoveries are made).

Sadly, there seem to be many scientists who seem to have the same attitude as you. There are not many who are more convinced it's worth pursuing.

Why don't you perform the replication and let us know how it goes?

I'll keep you posted.

Well I don't have a link to that article at the moment so I can't actually read it. And you haven't exaplined what he is actually saying.
Other than that, very helpful.

Neither have you explained what the criticisms of the other experiments are saying. However, that does not stop you from assuming that they are valid.

Ah the usual believers' lie - at last you resort to it. It's a 'desire' for there to be no psi I have is it?

Probably yes. That's just my opinion of course. If the uncritical believer has a desire for there to be psi, so if follows that the uncritical disbeliever will have the opposite desire. And yes, you are being uncritical.

Why on earth would I desire such a thing - it makes no sense. I spent years believing it did exist until experience and reading about all the failed psychics and failed tests disabused me of these beliefs.

Such is the power of an unbalanced exposed to the phenomena and the scientific evidence. I guess that the failed psychics you read about were brought to you courtesy of Randi & co along with the dregs of the "science" performed by self-proclaimed "paranormal investigators". That's fine, there are plenty of frauds and delusioned people. However, there are also plenty of cases of normal people experiencing things that are difficult to explain with what we know and that have a basis of similarity that warrants a scientific look at what's going on. And the science has revealed evidence for something real.

Sad? I have believed in these things and subsequently changed my opinions an come to my own decisions about the likelihood of their existence. I am currently in agreement with what the scientific world believes and what has been demonstrated.
I have already changed my position on this subject. Do you honestly think it would be possible for you to David?

I've already told you the circumstances in which I would change my position. It's based on the scientific evidence.

I didn't say the researchers who had the failed experiments had left the field. I was talking about scientists who don't enter the field in the first place because they feel they have better things to research.
Read it again.

Fine, if that's what you mean't then I don't believe for a minute that these scientists base this view on an examination of the actual evidence. I think many of them are simply unaware of the nature of the experiments that have been performed and/or have been fed the same kind of material we see continually on this site - the Silvia Brownes, the Uri Gellers, the Van Praagh's. You can assume they are also aware of the types of good scientific experiments performed but that would be a very naive view point.

I like your argument though:
People research Psi.
They get poor to no results.
Very few people continue to research it.
Occasionally someone gets something slightly statistically significant.
It is replicated and shows no results - Experimenter effect.
It is not replicated - The nasty sceptical scientists are spending their time doing other work when they should be testing Psi.

No, my argument is this:
Relatively very few people research psi compared to conventional research.
They get fair to good results
A steady increase of people continue to research it but still relatively few.
A good proportion of the time people get significance sometimes high significance, sometimes extremely high significance.
A particular experiment continually shows no or little results with one researcher and continually shows much better results with another - experimenter effect.
It is not replicated by a number of researchers, sceptical or believer - no effect.

David, if Psi does exist it will eventually be demonstrated clearly. And I will read all the research avidly from that point onwards.

You still haven't said how many replications it should take to convince you or the scientific community. Just a ball park figure will do.

What you consider to be clear evidence has not convinced me or the scientific community at large.

You have not given the slightest coherent argument as to why this is the case.

 

[Tricky]

I'll be convinced that psi exists when I see one single useful thing that comes out of the study of psi. It has been studied for a very long time, and yet no model of how it works exists and there are no demonstrably effective tools or products that utilize it.

Compare this with other hithero-unknown things, such as X-rays. They were doubted by many, but researchers found ways not only to prove they exist, but to do useful things with them.

Why is the same not true of psi? It has been studied for a great deal longer.

 

[Ashles]

You have not given the slightest coherent argument as to why this is the case.

If you cannot understand what I am saying after all these posts then I realise that you are actively refusing to.

I can understand clearly what you are saying and I disagree for reasons I have explained over and over.

I am not going to convince you otherwise and your arguments have not convinced me otherwise.
There is no 'ball-park figure' of repeated trials - to imply such a thing would be ludicrous, and that's not how a) science or b) personal beliefs work. It tends to be a body of evidence.
Let's just put it this way - I think it would take less evidence to convince me that Psi existed than it would to convince you that Psi didn't.

I will just add:

Such is the power of an unbalanced exposed to the phenomena and the scientific evidence. I guess that the failed psychics you read about were brought to you courtesy of Randi & co along with the dregs of the "science" performed by self-proclaimed "paranormal investigators".

You guess wrong. It was through direct experience (I actually worked in a holistic healing centre) and subsequently reading articles about 'psychics' - I never even heard of Randi until 2003.

You've got quite some prejudices about sceptics it would appear.

 

[davidsmith73]

If you cannot understand what I am saying after all these posts then I realise that you are actively refusing to.

I understand what you are saying, I just think there is little logical reasoning behind your view. Instead, your view seems to be based not on examination of the real evidence but on the cases of fraud, incompentence and delusion that unfortunately appear in this indiscriminate category of the "paranormal". I think that when you are confronted with a sound scientific experiment that shows evidence for psi, you refer back to the cases of failed "psychics" and pseudosceintists you know and have read about. We see them all the time in Randi's column. I understand that you would naturally be very suspicious of parapsychology if you were constantly exposed to those accounts. But that's just the crap that's out there and there is a lot of it, I know.

I can understand clearly what you are saying and I disagree for reasons I have explained over and over.

But lets look at your reasons. You can't find anything wrong with the Bem paper and you say that data fiddling or method error is a possible or even probable cause. Fair enough, one can not exclude fraud from any experiment but is that a reason to reject the evidence? I don't think so, otherwise we would have to reject any original scientific paper. Method error? What method error? Where?

There is no 'ball-park figure' of repeated trials - to imply such a thing would be ludicrous, and that's not how a) science or b) personal beliefs work. It tends to be a body of evidence.

It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask you or any scientist as to what level of replication is needed to convince them that an experiment is showing a real effect. If the Bem experiments are replicated by say another two sceptical experimenters then I would be certain of your prejudices if you still refuse to accept there is a real effect

You guess wrong. It was through direct experience (I actually worked in a holistic healing centre) and subsequently reading articles about 'psychics' - I never even heard of Randi until 2003.

You've got quite some prejudices about sceptics it would appear.

Well I got it pretty much right then. I'm sure the articles you read were about failed "psychics", much the same as what we read about on this site. Do you have any references to those articles out of interest? If that is what you base your notion of the available evidence on then I'm not surprised about your views.

 

[Ashles]

If the Bem experiments are replicated by say another two sceptical experimenters then I would be certain of your prejudices if you still refuse to accept there is a real effect

Yes, I know. You have made this clear over and over.

You would assume psi is real, I would suspect there is another mechanism resonsible. It would take more than that to convince me.

This passed tedious long ago and is entering the absurd.

I understand what you are saying, I just think there is little logical reasoning behind your view.

Well we'll just have to disagree then. I find my viewpoint eminently logical as it fits in with current known scientific thinking.
What will convince me otherwise are repeated experiments. So I await these.
If you don't think waiting for further evidence is a logical way to ensure an effect exists (when you currently don't think it does) then our thoughts about methods of scientific development are very different.

 

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Davidsmith73

. I'm sure the articles you read were about failed "psychics", much the same as what we read about on this site. Do you have any references to those articles out of interest?

Do you have any references real psychics,out of interest?

 

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Davidsmith73

Do you have any references real psychics,out of interest?

Honorton, C. (1971) Automated forced-choice precognition tests with a “sensitive”. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 65, 476-481.

Honorton, C. Precognition and real time ESP performance in a computer task with an exceptional subject. Journal of Parapsychology, 51, 291-320.


Both papers describe experiments with Malcolm Bessant at the Maimondes Medical lab in NY investigating precognitive dreams.