Misleading Sceptic Report article

[davidsmith73]

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

 

[Ashles]

[Ashles gets popcorn, settles into comfy seat and awaits the fun]

 

[Lothian]

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

And I was also remiss to point out that incredibly despite the fact that better experiments of the type the author suggests have been carried out for many decades now we still have no proof that the supposed effect exists.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

And I was also remiss to point out that incredibly despite the fact that better experiments of the type the author suggests have been carried out for many decades now we still have no proof that the supposed effect exists.

That's a different issue entirely

 

[Lothian]

Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

That's a different issue entirely

Ummmm why ?

Surely the point you make is that this poor experiment which showed no effect is not typical of the many other good experiments which also show no effect.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Ummmm why ?

Surely the point you make is that this poor experiment which showed no effect is not typical of the many other good experiments which also show no effect.

The results of such experiments are not the issue of my concern here. Its the representation of the methodology used in telepathy research. In fact, no mention is made in the article of the fact that the methodological problems in such a non-scientific test have been adressed thoroughly in scientific tests of telepathy. I would not be surprised if readers not familiar with parapsychological research conclude otherwise after reading this article.

 

[Lothian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

The results of such experiments are not the issue of my concern here. Its the representation of the methodology used in telepathy research. In fact, no mention is made in the article of the fact that the methodological problems in such a non-scientific test have been adressed thoroughly in scientific tests of telepathy. I would not be surprised if readers not familiar with parapsychological research conclude otherwise after reading this article.

But surely it would be cruel to point out that the methodological problems in such a non-scientific test have been addressed thoroughly in scientific tests without also giving the results of those tests.

I am not disagreeing with your proposed addition but this isn’t a TV program where we leave the viewer with a teaser. This is about education and we need to let people know how far we have progresses in both the methodology of tests and in the results those tests achieved in the search for telepathic powers.

So far we have devised some really sound experiments that don’t allow room for error or cheating and they all show no effect.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

But surely it would be cruel to point out that the methodological problems in such a non-scientific test have been addressed thoroughly in scientific tests without also giving the results of those tests.

I am not disagreeing with your proposed addition but this isn’t a TV program where we leave the viewer with a teaser. This is about education and we need to let people know how far we have progresses in both the methodology of tests and in the results those tests achieved in the search for telepathic powers.

So far we have devised some really sound experiments that don’t allow room for error or cheating and they all show no effect.

By all means include the results of proper scientific tests, but that issue deserves a separate article (as there further down in the Sceptic Report). Also, I completely disagree with you there. The results do show effects, just not enough to convince some people. I don't want to get into another debate about results. I just wanted to point out that its important to fully inform readers and leave no room for biased representation.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

By all means include the results of proper scientific tests, but that issue deserves a separate article

Er, yes.

So what do you want changing?

Suggest an extra paragraph or so that would make it un-"biased" according to you.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Er, yes.

So what do you want changing?

Suggest an extra paragraph or so that would make it un-"biased" according to you.

Just a few lines would do. Something along the lines of - "although this test fails miserable on methodological grounds, the majority of scientific research into telepathy employs adequate controls in its experimental design"

Perhaps a link to the excellent article further down in the Sceptic Report - "The Current State of Parapsychology Research" by Scott Teresi

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Just a few lines would do. Something along the lines of - "although this test fails miserable on methodological grounds, the majority of scientific research into telepathy employs adequate controls in its experimental design"

Perhaps a link to the excellent article further down in the Sceptic Report - "The Current State of Parapsychology Research" by Scott Teresi

Hey! Here's an idea. Why don't YOU write your own article and submit it to CFL for publication on his site. I think he [willing/happily] accepts well-written pieces from guest bloggers. Or, you could start your own site.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

The results of such experiments are not the issue of my concern here. Its the representation of the methodology used in telepathy research. In fact, no mention is made in the article of the fact that the methodological problems in such a non-scientific test have been adressed thoroughly in scientific tests of telepathy. I would not be surprised if readers not familiar with parapsychological research conclude otherwise after reading this article.

First of all, readers not familiar with parapsychological research should immediately be informed that the whole field of parapsychology is not only littered with crooks, charlatans and con men, but also with an abundance of incompetent research. While brutal and uncomfortable to some, that is the harsh truth.

Second, it would be most incorrect to give readers not familiar with parapsychological research the impression that the "majority" (as you call it) of research is being done with sound methodology without also stating that this has resulted in rapidly disappearing effect sizes.

Third, why don't you write an article of your own and submit it to SkepticReport? Put your money where your mouth is, and see if your arguments hold up to scrutiny.

Just a few lines would do. Something along the lines of - "although this test fails miserable on methodological grounds, the majority of scientific research into telepathy employs adequate controls in its experimental design"

Back this up with evidence, please.

Perhaps a link to the excellent article further down in the Sceptic Report - "The Current State of Parapsychology Research" by Scott Teresi

Which was criticized for not being "current" enough... There's no pleasing some people!

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Third, why don't you write an article of your own and submit it to SkepticReport? Put your money where your mouth is, and see if your arguments hold up to scrutiny.

Gosh, I beat you to it again, sorta.

I must be on a run.

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

First of all, readers not familiar with parapsychological research should immediately be informed that the whole field of parapsychology is not only littered with crooks, charlatans and con men, but also with an abundance of incompetent research. While brutal and uncomfortable to some, that is the harsh truth.

"an abundance of incompetent research" is a claim that doesn't really cut it with me. If you're interested in the harsh truth then some kind of justification of this is needed. Peer reviewed articles with incompetent research please.

Second, it would be most incorrect to give readers not familiar with parapsychological research the impression that the "majority" (as you call it) of research is being done with sound methodology without also stating that this has resulted in rapidly disappearing effect sizes.

By all means state that, but also give proof of this claim. Prove that there is a correlation between improved study quality and disappearing effect sizes.

Third, why don't you write an article of your own and submit it to SkepticReport? Put your money where your mouth is, and see if your arguments hold up to scrutiny.

Firstly, it is you who is claiming that there is a correlation between the disappearance of effect sizes and methodology. My argument was simply that the article in your Sceptic Report does not inform the reader of the methodological quality of modern telepathy research, which it should in my opinion.


Secondly I don't think I need to write an article about your claim. Since the original article was on telepathy research we can quickly look at ganzfeld experiments, which I think are representative of the majority of telepathy experiments performed over the last 30 or so years.

(and here's me saying I don't want to get into a debate about the results )

Pre-autoganzfeld experiments were reviewed by Hyman and Honorton. Hyman claimed he found a correlation between study quality and effect sizes while Honortan did not (1) This was probably down to their different criteria applied to the study quality (interestingly the independent reviewed agreed with Honorton). Because of this discrepency, Hyman and Honorton came up with an agreed set of improved protocols for the autoganzfeld studies. According to your claim this should have resulted in an immediate disappearance of the effect. This did not happen. The results were consistent with the pre-ganzfeld studies (2) More recently, a meta-analysis revealed that the overall effect disappeared with the addition of all most recent experiments at the time of writing (well almost all, Wiseman and Milton left out 10 experiments that, if they had been included, would have resulted in a significantly replicated effect size) (3). However this late disappearance was found to correlate with the degree of standardness of the ganzfeld protocol rather than the degree of study quality, since all the recent studies follow the same autoganzfeld procedures as recommended by Hyman and Honortan (4)

1. Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld re search: A response to Hyman. Journal of Para psychology, 49, 51–91.

2. Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psy chological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.

3. Milton, J. & Wiseman, R. (2001). Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 434-438.

4. 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.

Back this up with evidence, please.

Of course. Just look at all experiments published in peer reviewed parapsychology journals. I could post all the methods sections here but it might take up a tad too much space

 

[Open Mind]

So far we have devised some really sound experiments that don’t allow room for error or cheating and they all show no effect.

'All show no effect' ...... Yes if you dismiss every positive controlled trial result as fraud, error, lucky fluctuations, etc. ..... it also helps to have a large pile of nearby sand, a long neck and pointed head too.

Personally I have a fairly pointed head, fairly long neck but I'm all out of sand .... so I think telepathy exists ... uselessly weak perhaps from practical purposes ... ... but it still exists IMO ....

.... and David is correct, that article is misleading, modern PSI trials have possibly the tightest controls of any area of research .....

 

[Stitch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Just a few lines would do. Something along the lines of - "although this test fails miserable on methodological grounds, the majority of scientific research into telepathy employs adequate controls in its experimental design"

Let me add:

"although this test fails miserable on methodological grounds, the <strike>majority of</strike> scientific research into telepathy that employs adequate controls in its experimental design shows no evidence of telepathy either"

 

[CFLarsen]

"an abundance of incompetent research" is a claim that doesn't really cut it with me. If you're interested in the harsh truth then some kind of justification of this is needed. Peer reviewed articles with incompetent research please.

Look at the history of paranormal research: The experiments generally are full of design flaws. Radin, Schwartz, Rhine, Soal, Targ, Puthoff...need I go on?

By all means state that, but also give proof of this claim. Prove that there is a correlation between improved study quality and disappearing effect sizes.

Excuse me? You claim to be knowledgable about paranormal research, and you are not aware of this?

Firstly, it is you who is claiming that there is a correlation between the disappearance of effect sizes and methodology. My argument was simply that the article in your Sceptic Report does not inform the reader of the methodological quality of modern telepathy research, which it should in my opinion.

No, no, no...you are trying to turn the tables here. You show your evidence.

Secondly I don't think I need to write an article about your claim. Since the original article was on telepathy research we can quickly look at ganzfeld experiments, which I think are representative of the majority of telepathy experiments performed over the last 30 or so years.

You "think"?

Pre-autoganzfeld experiments were reviewed by Hyman and Honorton. Hyman claimed he found a correlation between study quality and effect sizes while Honortan did not (1) This was probably down to their different criteria applied to the study quality (interestingly the independent reviewed agreed with Honorton). Because of this discrepency, Hyman and Honorton came up with an agreed set of improved protocols for the autoganzfeld studies. According to your claim this should have resulted in an immediate disappearance of the effect.

I see you misunderstand me, and I can understand why: When I said "disappearing", I should have said "diminishing".

This did not happen. The results were consistent with the pre-ganzfeld studies (2)

Who, among skeptics, reviewed this?

More recently, a meta-analysis revealed that the overall effect disappeared with the addition of all most recent experiments at the time of writing (well almost all, Wiseman and Milton left out 10 experiments that, if they had been included, would have resulted in a significantly replicated effect size) (3). However this late disappearance was found to correlate with the degree of standardness of the ganzfeld protocol rather than the degree of study quality, since all the recent studies follow the same autoganzfeld procedures as recommended by Hyman and Honortan (4)

Let me get this straight, OK? Are you saying that we can, today, perform a paranormal experiment that produces the same effect size, and that is not due to experimental flaws?

Because that's what I am reading into your statement here.

Of course. Just look at all experiments published in peer reviewed parapsychology journals. I could post all the methods sections here but it might take up a tad too much space

No evidence, then.

Your complaint is therefore dismissed.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Misleading Sceptic Report article

Perhaps a link to the excellent article further down in the Sceptic Report - "The Current State of Parapsychology Research" by Scott Teresi

Isn't it odd that a paper that hasn't been updated since Jan. 2000 would be put in the Jan. 2004 issue?

The paper omits the RNG experiment results, things which Sagan even said deserve study:

"At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers;..."
(Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 302)

 

[TLN]

"At the time of writing, there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers;..."
(Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, 1995, p. 302)

You left this part out:

I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true.

 

[T'ai Chi]

TLN, I'm not sure what your point is.

Sagan, while personally thinking that they aren't real, realizes that they "deserve serious study".

To get back to the contents of the article, one that purports to show the current state in 2000, to omit these results is something of a mystery.