Misleading Sceptic Report article

[T'ai Chi]

This all depends on what effect size you're using, doesn't it?

In your collecting of the results, which effect sizes are you looking at?

 

[TLN]

I asked for specific peer reviewed experimental papers, not just names.

So did I. I'm still waiting.

David, can I please see one serious, well-conducted scientific study that shows a psi effect? The experiment should be complete with raw data, testing protocol, and wherever possible, replicated by an independent lab and scientists.

You claim this exists. Show it.

 

[Ersby]

In your collecting of the results, which effect sizes are you looking at?

effect size r and cohen's d.

Assuming my sums are correct, of course.

(NB, I'm pretty confident my sums regarding the overall hit rate are okay. Not so sure about effect sizes and the like.)

 

[Dancing David]

David, can I please see one serious, well-conducted scientific study that shows a psi effect? The experiment should be complete with raw data, testing protocol, and wherever possible, replicated by an independent lab and scientists.

You claim this exists. Show it.

Yes please!

 

[davidsmith73]

So did I. I'm still waiting.

David, can I please see one serious, well-conducted scientific study that shows a psi effect? The experiment should be complete with raw data, testing protocol, and wherever possible, replicated by an independent lab and scientists.

You claim this exists. Show it.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49167

Very interesting results here. Raw EEG data is too dense to put in a paper though.

 

[CFLarsen]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49167

Very interesting results here. Raw EEG data is too dense to put in a paper though.

Does it show a psi effect, yes or no?

 

[deBergerac]

Claus,
I have been browsing your Sceptic Report site and although I admire all efforts in bringing to light the rising tides of nonsense that's out there, I think that the article "Analysis of a telepathy test" by Per Johan Rasmark paints an incomplete picture of research into telepathy. Perhaps this distortion is inadvertant but I feel I should express my concerns. The author rightly states that the test described in the article is not scientific, nor was it intended to be. However this makes the test entirely unrepresentative of parapsychological research. What concerns me is the fact that no mention is made in the article of the fact that experiments by serious parapsychologists do not employ such sloppy methodology. Indeed, the author goes as far as to suggest the design of a better experiment than that described. An uninformed reader would not know that better experiments of the type the author suggests have been carried out for many decades now. Do you not think that it is your duty as a sceptic to inform the reader of this?


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

Even if I understand your critique I do not think it is justified. As you point out it is clearly stated that the test examined was not a scientific test. In fact scientific parapsychological research is not discussed at all in the article. The aim of the article was to show how unscientific tests can give an impression of a successful experiment even if this is not the case.
That it is possible to conduct scientific testing in parapsychological research I believe to be self-evident to readers of Sceptic Report. Perhaps I am wrong but I still do not think the article is misleading by not discussing the scientific research that exists. But that is, of course, my opinion and you are free to have another.

 

[davidsmith73]

Does it show a psi effect, yes or no?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[Beady]

In my opinion, yes.

So, it's a matter of opinion, rather than a demonstrable and irrefutable fact?

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Even if I understand your critique I do not think it is justified. As you point out it is clearly stated that the test examined was not a scientific test. In fact scientific parapsychological research is not discussed at all in the article. The aim of the article was to show how unscientific tests can give an impression of a successful experiment even if this is not the case.
That it is possible to conduct scientific testing in parapsychological research I believe to be self-evident to readers of Sceptic Report. Perhaps I am wrong but I still do not think the article is misleading by not discussing the scientific research that exists. But that is, of course, my opinion and you are free to have another.

I think that nowadays there is a grave problem with peoples expectation towards parapsychology. In my experience they tend to fall into two categories. One is the uncritical believer and the other is the uncritical dismisser. The believer will indiscriminately accept that all parapsychology experiments are proof of psi merely by virtue of their subject matter, without examining what the experiments are really showing. Likewise the uncritical dismisser will accept that all parapsychology experiments do not show "any shred of evidence" for psi, again merely by virtue of subject matter. This forum is rare in that, generally, the evidence is looked at and discussed. When articles, such as the one in Sceptic Report, examine such a poor test of telepathy and rightly dismiss it as crap but do not mention that proper tests exist, this will tend to reinforce the unciritcal dismisser's expectations about the standard of psi experiments. I see your point in that the article was not about scientific experiments, but I think that as sceptics we have a duty not to widen the divide between the uncritical believer and dismisser because the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[davidsmith73]

So, it's a matter of opinion, rather than a demonstrable and irrefutable fact?

In my opinion its somewhat a matter of opinion

 

[davidsmith73]

Show me a replicable Ganzfeld experiment that shows evidence of a paranormal phenomenon.

Yet another shift away from the actual subject of this thread.

Do you agree that parapsychology is not "littered" with an "abundance" of incompetent research?

It is very much about the evidence.

No, I'm addressing the general opinion on the methodology of parapsychology. The evidence rightly deserves a separate thread.

They are a brilliant example of how the effect diminishes when better controls are put in place.

references? Also I don't think that applying your argument to research from the 1930's is very immpressive.

Yes, a lot of words.

Care to comment on those words?

Where is your proof that there is a correlation between diminishing effect sizes and study quality?

 

[CFLarsen]

In my opinion its somewhat a matter of opinion

So, there is no evidence? Only your opinion?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you agree that parapsychology is not "littered" with an "abundance" of incompetent research?

Parapsychology is littered with an abundance of incompetent research. That is a fact.

No, I'm addressing the general opinion on the methodology of parapsychology. The evidence rightly deserves a separate thread.

We have had a plethora of threads where claims of evidence have been made. Still no evidence. You are, of course, free to open as many threads about evidence as you want, but if all you have is your opinion....that doesn't cut it here.

references? Also I don't think that applying your argument to research from the 1930's is very immpressive.

How disingenious. I also have showed research from the past few years.

Care to comment on those words?

No, I prefer to focus on evidence. After that is found, then we can talk.

Where is your proof that there is a correlation between diminishing effect sizes and study quality?

Look at Ganzfeld, e.g. It started out with these fantastic results, but the effect is all but gone.

 

[davidsmith73]

Parapsychology is littered with an abundance of incompetent research. That is a fact.

No, that's a statement you have not demonstrated to be true. The examples you gave are a very small proportion of the sound experiments that have been published. Try again.

We have had a plethora of threads where claims of evidence have been made. Still no evidence. You are, of course, free to open as many threads about evidence as you want, but if all you have is your opinion....that doesn't cut it here.

My opinion is that there is evidence. Fact's aren't written in stone. You don't seem to doubt your own opinion.

How disingenious. I also have showed research from the past few years.

Research that does not show evidence for a correlation between effect sizes and study quality.

No, I prefer to focus on evidence. After that is found, then we can talk.

You can prefer all you want. Since we are discussing the methodology of parapsychology, the evidence is irrelevant.

Look at Ganzfeld, e.g. It started out with these fantastic results, but the effect is all but gone.

I'll just repeat what I posted earlier since you have yet to respond to any of it.

Are the ganzfeld experiments comparable to the card experiments of Rhine in terms of methodological flaws? I think not.
I've given you references that show the overall effect size of the PRL ganzfeld studies is not significantly different from the pre-PRL studies, previously shown to have methodological flaws. Also, when the more recent studies are analysed for degree of standardness, from Bem, D.J, Palmer, J. and Broughton, R.S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: a victim of its own success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218:

"This same outcome can be observed by defining as standard the 29 replications whose ratings fell above the midpoint of the scale (4) and defining as nonstandard the 9 replications that fell below the mid point (2 replications fell at the mid point): The standard replications obtain an overall hit rate of 31.2%, ES = .096, Stouffer Z = 3.49, p = .0002, one-tailed. In contrast, the nonstandard replications obtain an over all hit rate of only 24.0%, ES = –.10, Stouffer Z = –1.30, ns. The difference between the
standard and non standard replications is itself significant, U = 190.5, p =.020, one-tailed. Most importantly, the mean effect size of the standard replications falls within the 95% confidence inter vals of both the 39 preautoganzfeld studies and the 10 autoganzfeld studies summarized by Bem and Honorton (1994). In other words, ganzfeld studies that adhere to the standard ganzfeld protocol continue to replicate with effect sizes comparable with those obtained in previous studies."

 

[davidsmith73]

So, there is no evidence? Only your opinion?

No, there is evidence, and that's my opinion

 

[Zep]

...there is evidence...

Would you care to share it with us all here?

He asked, hopefully.

 

[davidsmith73]

Would you care to share it with us all here?

He asked, hopefully.

I'm sorry I thought I already had, above with the ganzfeld stuff and here (again):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49167

and here:

http://a1162.fmg.uva.nl/research/PSI/PA2004org.html

These are the relavent papers :

"Anticipatory skin conductance responses: a possible example of decision augmentation theory"

"The precognitive habituation effect: an adaptation using spider stimuli" (not significant but suggestive)

"Physiological correlates of ESP: heart rate differences between targets and non-targets in clairvoyance and precognition forced choice tasks"

"Precognitive avoidance and precognitive déjß vu"

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry I thought I already had, above with the ganzfeld stuff and here (again):

No, you hadn't.

"Anticipatory skin conductance responses: a possible example of decision augmentation theory"

"possible example". Not "evidence".

"The precognitive habituation effect: an adaptation using spider stimuli" (not significant but suggestive)

"Not significant, but suggestive". Not "evidence".

"Physiological correlates of ESP: heart rate differences between targets and non-targets in clairvoyance and precognition forced choice tasks"

Pictures represented coloured calm images, i.e. landscapes, plants, flowers, portraits. Their degree of emotionality was measured asking to ten independent judges to rate each picture on a ten points scale from 0 (no emotion) to 10 (high level of emotion).

Give me a friggin' break. They have no idea how the participants "rated" the images. How can they know if one participant rates a picture 0 and another participant gives it a straight 10? The data from the heart rates are completely separated from what pictures were shown!

If some artefacts were noticed (for instance anomalous heart rate registrations or apparatus malfunctioning), the task was interrupted and restarted again.

You shittin' me? Do you know what they are doing? They take the data that doesn't fit (how the heck do they know that an "anomalous" heart rate isn't evidence of psi?) and simply throw it out!

Even if the raw difference is very low, less than one heart rate bit per second on average, it seems quite reliable as demonstrated by the analysis of our data.

This means it was extremely difficult to determine if the heart rate was high or not.

The difference between the clairvoyance and the precognition experiment seems not very reliable, even is in the second condition the heart rate difference between targets and non targets appears less evident.

Oops.

However, in both experiments, at the overt cognitive level, the means of hits is close to chance.

Oops.

The main hypothesis was that heart rate could change according to the categories of pictures, targets vs. non targets. The direction of this difference was not predictable in advance because, at our knowledge, there are not similar evidences in literature.

So, they are doing a brand new experiment, instead of trying to replicate an old one. Why? (We know why, to secure funding and having to avoid that they haven't replicated anything)

"Precognitive avoidance and precognitive déjß vu"

The PH hypothesis is that the repeated exposures of the target can reach back in time to diminish the arousing targets less positive.

No: The more we see something that offends us, the less agitated we get. The HP hypothesis is simply not valid.

Erotic and positive (nonerotic) pictures are not yet showing any systematic patterns.

Whoa...this is contradicted by the previous experiment!

A pilot version of this procedure was administered to 20 participants in a weekend conference at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. They showed a significant PDV effect, especially those who were high on the personality trait of Openness to Experience.

Hardly an unbiased group of people, in an unbiased environment!

Who is the "skeptical investigator" who "independently" replicated the result? He/she is never named, nor his result. Why not? (I think I know why...)

Sorry, but I am still not seeing any evidence of a paranormal phenomenon anywhere.

 

[davidsmith73]

"possible example". Not "evidence".

a possible example of their theory. The anomalous psi effect is still there regardless.

Give me a friggin' break. They have no idea how the participants "rated" the images. How can they know if one participant rates a picture 0 and another participant gives it a straight 10?

If someone rates a picture as higly emotional then it will be reflected in the normal change in heart rate after the picture is shown. If this is the case, how is this a flaw? Under the null hypothesis you still would not expect a pre-stimulus response if the target was emotional or calm.

You shittin' me? Do you know what they are doing? They take the data that doesn't fit (how the heck do they know that an "anomalous" heart rate isn't evidence of psi?) and simply throw it out!

No, they were looking to see if obvious artifacts were being produced due to faulty recording. You don't just keep every bit of data you record without removing instances of equipment failure. I'm just imagining what you would be saying if they kept the obvious artifacts!

This means it was extremely difficult to determine if the heart rate was high or not.

Don't know what you mean

Oops.

the precognition condition was still significant.

Oops.

Your point being? This was an experiment with evidence for physiological correlates of psi.

So, they are doing a brand new experiment, instead of trying to replicate an old one. Why? (We know why, to secure funding and having to avoid that they haven't replicated anything)

Not relavent to whether or not the experiment shows evidence.

No: The more we see something that offends us, the less agitated we get. The HP hypothesis is simply not valid.

Erm Claus, that's what the HP hypothesis is essentially based on. Wipe the froth away and think about what you are posting next time.

Whoa...this is contradicted by the previous experiment!

Lets have the full quote shall we:
At this point, it appears that there are systematic individual differences: Those high in anxiety show the predicted effects on the negative trials, but those high in sensation seeking show the reverse effect, significantly exposing themselves to the negatively arousing images. Erotic and positive (nonerotic) pictures are not yet showing any systematic patterns. At the moment, there are too few sessions to be confident of these patterns, but there does appear to be precognitive responding with this protocol.

Hardly an unbiased group of people, in an unbiased environment!

What are you saying here? Is the psychological characteristics of the participants a flaw in the methods? If so why?

Who is the "skeptical investigator" who "independently" replicated the result? He/she is never named, nor his result. Why not? (I think I know why...)

Replications are underway. You'll have to wait.