New PSI forum

[Stitch]

The problem for Lucianarchy is that this smashes any attempt he has and will made that his psychic abilities yet again have been proved.

He tried 5 times, failed to produce more than one hit, so there has to be someone out to get him.

When TheBoyPaj has already said the experiment is "for fun" and is not controlled in what would be considered a reasonable manner, Lucianarchy seems to be taking things way to seriously.

 

[Stitch]

Is it? Or is it being sceptical?

If you had said "Someone who knows my IP could be forging it" and stopped then I would have said that "You don't yet know what has happened, but have proposed a reasonable hypothesis for investigation".

The problem was that you immediately went on to reference CL, suggesting he may be responsible (I may be mis-interpretting, but if that was not your intent, it may have been wise to have started a new paragraph) So before you have determined if the hypothesis holds water, you go on to start drawing conclusions from an un-tested hypothesis.

I realise that you are new here, Stitch, but Larsen has a dark, disturbing history fanaticism, deception and trying to re-write history which you would be well advised to research further..

An assumption, based no doubt, on my registration date. I have been a lurker for a significant time, but felt no need to register as I wasn't ready to post yet. I am well aware of the history between You and CF (and indeed a few others).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

You have pretty much demonstrated that what I am saying is correct. For as long as you believed the evidence in question (a positive result for the experimenter effect) was evidence of PSI you tried every fallacious argument in the book in order to discount that evidence, withouth even having read the paper. You didn't need to read it, did you? Because you already knew that if it was evidence of PSI then it must be wrong. But then, when you finally bothered to read the paper and realised the skeptic involved had himself accepted the result but claimed it need not neccesarily be evidence of PSI, there was a miraculous change in attitude. Suddenly, the experiment and the result was not the subject of repeated attempts by you to manufacture reasons to reject it. Suddenly you found yourself able to accept the positive result. All that had changed was the implication of the result. The evidence had not changed. So, if you believe some evidence is evidence of PSI, then you wil manufacture reasons to dismiss it. If you believe the same evidence is not evidence of PSI, then you might accept it. QED, Claus. You aren't looking at the evidence. All you are looking at is the conclusion. Cart before horse. If you think it's evidence of PSI, then you will believe it must be faulty evidence and you will use all sorts of bogus arguments to defend that pre-decided conclusion. Hardly surprising that you don't think any evidence exists, really, is it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

CFLarsen,

Now for your post itself :

Poppycock. You equate unsolved problems with bombs under the whole structure of science. Neither cosmology or particle physics are "in crisis" - they are constantly developing, constantly finding new evidence.

The point was that in many areas, things "don't fit". Please stop going off on a tangent.

Which is the nature of science. But that doesn't mean that science is in crisis. It doesn't mean we cannot rely on it. It is still by far the most convincing method we have.

Sure, Claus. Just because science does go through periodic episodes of crisis does not mean it is about to collapse.

I am still waiting for the evidence to show.

But Claus, you just spent the thread discounting perfectly valid evidence of the experimenter effect, for the sole reasons that you thought it implied the existence of PSI. When you didn't think it neccesarily implied this, then you changed your attitude to the evidence. QED, Claus, think about it.

There is none.

That's right Claus, and God does not play dice with the Universe!

The truth is that the experiment you pointed to showed no evidence of psi.

We haven't even got to that point in the debate yet!

What do you think it shows evidence of?

Whoa...if no conclusions about the mechanism can be made, why does this have to be supernatural?

Maybe it doesn't, Claus. But it has been fascinating watching your reaction to it when you thought it did. Can you really put your hand on your heart and claim you are being impartial about the evidence, and not changing your attitude to the evidence depending on the conclusion?

You've never heard of Ørsted? The discoverer of electromagnetism? And you wonder why I say you don't understand science?

Claus, I do not need have a detailed knowledge of every significant person in the history of science, in order to understand science.

Yes, it seems well documented by now. You could also call it "experimenter bias", which, IMO, is a more suitable term.

Then the next question is, how could experimenter bias have produced these results?

Sure, let's move on: What, in the Wiseman/Schlitz experiment was not due to the experimenter effect? What was so supernatural about it?

I think we have to understand more about the experimenter effect before we can draw conclusions. Also, the term "supernatural" is a bit misleading. Maybe it is not "supernatural", but rather a natural phenomena currently not understood by science. The question is "why should the beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter have any effect on the results of experiments designed to detect PSI?", agreed?

 

[Ed]

I think we have to understand more about the experimenter effect before we can draw conclusions. Also, the term "supernatural" is a bit misleading. Maybe it is not "supernatural", but rather a natural phenomena currently not understood by science. The question is "why should the beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter have any effect on the results of experiments designed to detect PSI?", agreed? [/B]

I think that any hypothesis concerning this issue is non-falsifiable. That is to say that the experiment cannot be constructed with a modicum of control.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have pretty much demonstrated that what I am saying is correct. For as long as you believed the evidence in question (a positive result for the experimenter effect) was evidence of PSI you tried every fallacious argument in the book in order to discount that evidence, withouth even having read the paper. You didn't need to read it, did you? Because you already knew that if it was evidence of PSI then it must be wrong. But then, when you finally bothered to read the paper and realised the skeptic involved had himself accepted the result but claimed it need not neccesarily be evidence of PSI, there was a miraculous change in attitude. Suddenly, the experiment and the result was not the subject of repeated attempts by you to manufacture reasons to reject it. Suddenly you found yourself able to accept the positive result. All that had changed was the implication of the result. The evidence had not changed. So, if you believe some evidence is evidence of PSI, then you wil manufacture reasons to dismiss it. If you believe the same evidence is not evidence of PSI, then you might accept it. QED, Claus. You aren't looking at the evidence. All you are looking at is the conclusion. Cart before horse. If you think it's evidence of PSI, then you will believe it must be faulty evidence and you will use all sorts of bogus arguments to defend that pre-decided conclusion. Hardly surprising that you don't think any evidence exists, really, is it?

It is very interesting to see how you can misrepresent things. Oh, well.

The point was that in many areas, things "don't fit". Please stop going off on a tangent.

Why is an explanation a "tangent"? It is very much on subject.

Sure, Claus. Just because science does go through periodic episodes of crisis does not mean it is about to collapse.

What "crisis" are you talking about? I don't see a lot of desperate scientific wars. Could you be a bit more specific?

But Claus, you just spent the thread discounting perfectly valid evidence of the experimenter effect, for the sole reasons that you thought it implied the existence of PSI. When you didn't think it neccesarily implied this, then you changed your attitude to the evidence. QED, Claus, think about it.

Not at all. I point out that there is no evidence of psi. I have not denied the existence of experimenter bias/effect. You want to mix two things together.

That's right Claus, and God does not play dice with the Universe!

If you claim that there is evidence of psi, let's see it.

We haven't even got to that point in the debate yet!

No? I thought you wanted to "move on" and discuss the evidence of psi?

What do you think it shows evidence of?

I have already answered that.

Maybe it doesn't, Claus. But it has been fascinating watching your reaction to it when you thought it did. Can you really put your hand on your heart and claim you are being impartial about the evidence, and not changing your attitude to the evidence depending on the conclusion?

Yes, I can. Now, are you arguing that there is evidence of a supernatural phenomenon or not? Please clarify your position.

Claus, I do not need have a detailed knowledge of every significant person in the history of science, in order to understand science.

No, you don't. But it would be nice if you were aware of one of the most fundamental discoveries in science, and - juuuust perhaps - the name of the man who discovered it. Have you had time to look him up to understand why I say you don't understand science?

Then the next question is, how could experimenter bias have produced these results?

I wasn't there, and I have not seen a very detailed description of the experiment.

I think we have to understand more about the experimenter effect before we can draw conclusions. Also, the term "supernatural" is a bit misleading. Maybe it is not "supernatural", but rather a natural phenomena currently not understood by science. The question is "why should the beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter have any effect on the results of experiments designed to detect PSI?", agreed?

No, I don't agree. That would assume that psi experiments were the only experiments that we would see bias in. We know that experimenter bias/effect also shows up in other experiments, e.g. in placebo experiments.

The experimenter bias/effect has nothing to do with whether it is a supernatural phenomenon that is being investigated.

Let's sum up, to clarify:

• What "crisis" are you talking about? I don't see a lot of desperate scientific wars. Could you be a bit more specific?
• Do you claim that any evidence of any paranormal phenomenon exists?
• If yes, can we see it, so we can discuss it?

 

[Ed]

I think that any hypothesis concerning this issue is non-falsifiable. That is to say that the experiment cannot be constructed with a modicum of control.

The point is that the possibility of cheating and experimenter influence appear to me to be confounded. How can you get around that?

 

[flyboy217]

I don't have a background in science. I do not need a background in science to understand it. I did neither refuse to accept basic QM or claim to understand it.

Oh, my god. You have never heard of him either. Back to Physics 101 you go.

Let me get this straight Claus. You claim to have no background in science, and don't claim to understand basic QM, but are happy to argue it anyway (in the RPKP thread: "just change ONE zero to a one," a nonsense argument if there ever was one). I was a semifinalist in the US Physics Olympiad, and have published papers in Computer Science which have won awards (e.g. IEEE best paper). I didn't recognize the name of one physicist (btw, over here it's transliterated Oersted) that was suddenly brought up in conversation, and I need to go back to Physics 101? And you're lecturing me about science? I think I'll pass. I don't need lectures from armchair scientists, thanks.

No, I am not making it up, I am trying to explain the consequences of the proclaimed results.

They are being stared at by millions. They should be reduced to quivering blobs of goo.
...
Ergo, we should expect TV anchors to be reduced to a mass of blubber. If one person can make you sweat a bit more by watching you on video, then 50 million watching Barbara Walters should leave her in a puddle.

Yes, you are making this up. If you are not, then please explain where the paper (or indeed anyone but you) suggests that the effects are cumulative.

How do those consequences necessarily follow from the experiment? Do you understand the word "consequence?" Or "necessarily?" If one person watching you can be noticed, then the effect of millions of people watching would necessarily melt you? That's a wild-ass conjecture that nobody but you has proposed. That is the definition of "making it up," Claus. So I repeat: please stop making up nonsense and putting it on us. That is very clearly not what science is about.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think that any hypothesis concerning this issue is non-falsifiable. That is to say that the experiment cannot be constructed with a modicum of control. [/B]

Why not?

 

[Ed]

Why not?

Very simply, the question will revolve around the definition of proximity and involvement.

At some point proximity and involvement will become inseperable from collusion and fraud. If that is the point where the experimenter effect is made manifest then you have no experiment.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let me get this straight Claus. You claim to have no background in science, and don't claim to understand basic QM, but are happy to argue it anyway (in the RPKP thread: "just change ONE zero to a one," a nonsense argument if there ever was one). I was a semifinalist in the US Physics Olympiad, and have published papers in Computer Science which have won awards (e.g. IEEE best paper). I didn't recognize the name of one physicist (btw, over here it's transliterated Oersted) that was suddenly brought up in conversation, and I need to go back to Physics 101? And you're lecturing me about science? I think I'll pass. I don't need lectures from armchair scientists, thanks.

A semifinalist in the US Physics Olympiad - who has never heard of Ørsted? It isn't merely the name, I also mentioned why he was so famous - but still you didn't recognize him?

Sorry, I am trying to grasp that concept.

Yes, you are making it up.

How do those consequences necessarily follow from the experiment? Do you understand the word "consequence?" Or "necessarily?" If one person watching you can be noticed, then the effect of millions of people watching would necessarily melt you? That's a wild-ass conjecture that nobody but you has proposed. That is the definition of "making it up," Claus. So I repeat: please stop making up nonsense and putting it on us.

What difference does it mean how many people come up with this explanation? Is there some kind of magic number that determines whether an explanation should be considered?

My suggestion was not as "wild-assed" as you want it to look like. First, we know that, in proven physics, the more you do something, the bigger effect. The more energy you put into something, the bigger readout on the meter. Second, I had the Global Consciousness Project in mind, when I suggested it: More people, bigger effect. I could also point to the prayer-by-healing experiements.

Science invites all kinds of explanations. That's what I was trying to do, and I based it not on pure imagination, but on what we know from proven science, as well as on the various explanations from the field of paranormals.

Do you mind if I check your credentials?

 

[Ed]

Do you mind if I check your credentials?

JustGeoff:

Don't be terribly offended. We had a guy here named Grenard who positioned himself as an expert on clinical recording of EEG and such. Turned out he did not understand the distinction between resistance and impedence. He subsequently threw a hissy fit about something or other and stalked off. Point is that his thoughts on electonics were a tad flawed. I am sure you understand. As Waugh said "To understand all is to forgive all". Words to live by.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What "crisis" are you talking about? I don't see a lot of desperate scientific wars. Could you be a bit more specific?

Who said anything about a war? There's lots of examples. The clash between the current believed age of the Universe and the current believed age of some of the stars is a classic recent example. There are stars in the observable Universe which seem to be older than the Universe itself. This problem is getting worse, not better, because recent Hubble images have thrown up structures in the far distant Universe which appear to be older than they could possibly be, given how old we believe the Universe is and how far away the objects are.

Another example I already gave you : the pentaquark. The first paragraph of last weeks lead article in NS :

"There is something the matter with matter. Around the world, several research groups have reported seeing a particle which does not fit comfortably with our standard picture of matter. As if that wasn't bad enough, the only group of researchers to predict the existence of this particle hold to a picture of physics so radical that most physicists just can't swallow it."

Not at all. I point out that there is no evidence of psi. I have not denied the existence of experimenter bias/effect. You want to mix two things together.

I don't actually. Unlike you, I haven't made my mind up already.

If you claim that there is evidence of psi, let's see it.

For the record, I did not claim there was evidence of PSI. What I claimed was that if such evidence existed, the skeptics would refuse to believe it because they have already decided PSI could not possibly exist - because for the skeptics, PSI "doesn't fit".

No? I thought you wanted to "move on" and discuss the evidence of psi?

I said you could move on, actually. I see little point in discussing the evidence with you, because it is already so obvious that you will reject any line of reasoning or any evidence that supports the existence of PSI. No point in flogging a dead horse, Claus. You are not capable of believing it, so why have the conversation?

Yes, I can. Now, are you arguing that there is evidence of a supernatural phenomenon or not? Please clarify your position.

I am not arguing that there is and I am not arguing that there isn't. I am arguing that if there was valid evidence, the skeptics would reject it anyway. If you go back and check my posts, that is what I have been arguing from the start.

No, you don't. But it would be nice if you were aware of one of the most fundamental discoveries in science, and - juuuust perhaps - the name of the man who discovered it.

Claus, this is silly. I have 3 science A-levels, a computer science degree, 20 years of reading New Scientist from one cover to the other and I am just about to go back to University to study cognitive science and philosophy. Science and critical thinking have been a central part of my life.

Have you had time to look him up to understand why I say you don't understand science?

I am perfectly aware of who you are talking about now. And I am aware of the episode of scientific discovery you mention because Kuhn talks about it in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which I read earlier this year.

No, I don't agree. That would assume that psi experiments were the only experiments that we would see bias in. We know that experimenter bias/effect also shows up in other experiments, e.g. in placebo experiments.

I'm not sure I follow this. First you say PSI experiments were the only ones we see bias in. Then you say it shows up in other experiments. Eh?

The experimenter bias/effect has nothing to do with whether it is a supernatural phenomenon that is being investigated.

How do you know?

There is a history to this. The paranormalist involved had produced a positive result for this phenomenen, and repeated it. There were then lots of questions asked, and lots of challenges made. In response to the challenges, she asked a skeptic to carry out exactly the same experiment and he got different results. They then refined the experiment further and carried out a new set of tests with both the skeptic and the paranormalist experimenters, and again they got different results. This suggests two things to me. Firstly, that phenomenen does exist, and secondly that whether or not it manifests is dependent on the beliefs and attitude of the person carrying out the experiment. You seem to be arguing that all that has been shown is that the paranormalist was somehow doing the experiment wrong. Yes?

 

[flyboy217]

A semifinalist in the US Physics Olympiad - who has never heard of Ørsted? It isn't merely the name, I also mentioned why he was so famous - but still you didn't recognize him?

Sorry, I am trying to grasp that concept.

That's right, I did not recognize the name (in that spelling) in this context:

How can we know that Ørsted didn't move his compass needle by influencing the electrical current by thought?

I hope I can be forgiven.

What difference does it mean how many people come up with this explanation? Is there some kind of magic number that determines whether an explanation should be considered?

My suggestion was not as "wild-assed" as you want it to look like. First, we know that, in proven physics, the more you do something, the bigger effect. The more energy you put into something, the bigger readout on the meter. Second, I had the Global Consciousness Project in mind, when I suggested it: More people, bigger effect. I could also point to the prayer-by-healing experiements.

Science invites all kinds of explanations. That's what I was trying to do, and I based it not on pure imagination, but on what we know from proven science, as well as on the various explanations from the field of paranormals.

Let me repeat your quote here:

Ergo, we should expect TV anchors to be reduced to a mass of blubber

Ergo. That means "therefore," implying direct consequence. And you state "we should expect." All this, before even addressing the original result. If you would like to suggest this conclusion, we can examine it carefully. Until then, it sounds like a poor attempt to discredit the original result by attaching an unfounded extrapolation.

Do you mind if I check your credentials?

I do not mind. I can PM you with my personal information, if you will allow me. I would prefer my personal information remain private on internet forums.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Very simply, the question will revolve around the definition of proximity and involvement.

At some point proximity and involvement will become inseperable from collusion and fraud. If that is the point where the experimenter effect is made manifest then you have no experiment.

Ed,

Proximity isn't an issue. The person being stared at is completely isolated from both the starer and from the experimenter. Any proximity close enough to provide direct physical cues destroys the validity of the experiment. There can be no proximity at all because that way there can be no fraud at all. "Collusion" is a bit different. Basically you are saying you don't trust people who are not skeptics to carry out experiments honestly. If that is your position then we cannot progress, because nobody can do anything to prevent you accusing them of cheating.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JustGeoff:

Don't be terribly offended. We had a guy here named Grenard who positioned himself as an expert on clinical recording of EEG and such. Turned out he did not understand the distinction between resistance and impedence. He subsequently threw a hissy fit about something or other and stalked off. Point is that his thoughts on electonics were a tad flawed. I am sure you understand. As Waugh said "To understand all is to forgive all". Words to live by.

Ed,

I don't know if you meant this response to be directed at me. I think CFLs post was directed at flyboy. As far as my own scientific credentials are concerned, I would like to think that given the number of and quality of the science-related posts I have made at this site over the previous few years that nobody would seriously question my understanding of science in general. Maybe I'm being a bit hopeful, but who knows?

"To understand all is to forgive all" is a wonderful quote. Perhaps the hardest person of all to forgive is yourself.



Geoff.

 

[CFLarsen]

Who said anything about a war? There's lots of examples. The clash between the current believed age of the Universe and the current believed age of some of the stars is a classic recent example. There are stars in the observable Universe which seem to be older than the Universe itself. This problem is getting worse, not better, because recent Hubble images have thrown up structures in the far distant Universe which appear to be older than they could possibly be, given how old we believe the Universe is and how far away the objects are.

Another example I already gave you : the pentaquark. The first paragraph of last weeks lead article in NS :

"There is something the matter with matter. Around the world, several research groups have reported seeing a particle which does not fit comfortably with our standard picture of matter. As if that wasn't bad enough, the only group of researchers to predict the existence of this particle hold to a picture of physics so radical that most physicists just can't swallow it."

.........I'm sorry, but I don't see a "crisis" in either of these examples. Can you point them out to me?

I don't actually. Unlike you, I haven't made my mind up already.

I haven't made up my mind at all.

For the record, I did not claim there was evidence of PSI. What I claimed was that if such evidence existed, the skeptics would refuse to believe it because they have already decided PSI could not possibly exist - because for the skeptics, PSI "doesn't fit".

So, your whole point was not to argue the existence of psi, but to criticize skeptics for imaginary flaws?

I said you could move on, actually. I see little point in discussing the evidence with you, because it is already so obvious that you will reject any line of reasoning or any evidence that supports the existence of PSI. No point in flogging a dead horse, Claus. You are not capable of believing it, so why have the conversation?

Hey, don't feel obligated to convince me. Like I use to say, we don't post to each other, we post for those who merely reads. If you feel like there is evidence (and you seem to say there is, because how can you discuss it with me, if there was none?), just present it. Perhaps someone else than me might pop in and say their piece?

I am not arguing that there is and I am not arguing that there isn't. I am arguing that if there was valid evidence, the skeptics would reject it anyway. If you go back and check my posts, that is what I have been arguing from the start.

But that is truly a silly point of view. Why are you here, then? Only to imagine what skeptics think?

Claus, this is silly. I have 3 science A-levels, a computer science degree, 20 years of reading New Scientist from one cover to the other and I am just about to go back to University to study cognitive science and philosophy. Science and critical thinking have been a central part of my life.

Great! Can I check your credentials, too?

I am perfectly aware of who you are talking about now. And I am aware of the episode of scientific discovery you mention because Kuhn talks about it in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which I read earlier this year.

No, that was not it. I was only talking about Ørsted.

I'm not sure I follow this. First you say PSI experiments were the only ones we see bias in. Then you say it shows up in other experiments. Eh?

Where do I say that psi experiments are the only ones we see bias in???

How do you know?

Because we experience it in other fields as well. Real, scientific fields.

There is a history to this. The paranormalist involved had produced a positive result for this phenomenen, and repeated it. There were then lots of questions asked, and lots of challenges made. In response to the challenges, she asked a skeptic to carry out exactly the same experiment and he got different results. They then refined the experiment further and carried out a new set of tests with both the skeptic and the paranormalist experimenters, and again they got different results. This suggests two things to me. Firstly, that phenomenen does exist, and secondly that whether or not it manifests is dependent on the beliefs and attitude of the person carrying out the experiment. You seem to be arguing that all that has been shown is that the paranormalist was somehow doing the experiment wrong. Yes?

Yes, that's what I am saying: We see a documented case of experimenter bias.

I hope I can be forgiven.

I hope you can convince me that you did not recognize him.

Ergo. That means "therefore," implying direct consequence. And you state "we should expect." All this, before even addressing the original result. If you would like to suggest this conclusion, we can examine it carefully. Until then, it sounds like a poor attempt to discredit the original result by attaching an unfounded extrapolation.

Not at all. Based on the examples I gave you, it would be in conflict with those not to reach that conclusion.

I do not mind. I can PM you with my personal information, if you will allow me. I would prefer my personal information remain private on internet forums.

Of course. I don't PM, though. You can email me at editor@skepticreport.com

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Where do I say that psi experiments are the only ones we see bias in???

You didn't. I misread your post.


You said

No, I don't agree. That would assume that psi experiments were the only experiments that we would see bias in.

and it was a response to :

The question is "why should the beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter have any effect on the results of experiments designed to detect PSI?", agreed?

And I take your point. Why should beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter be having an effect on this particular experiment which is designed to test whether people can tell they are being stared at by a currently unknown mechanism.

Yes, that's what I am saying: We see a documented case of experimenter bias.

But how did you reach that conclusion? You have put the cart before the horse. You have no evidence of experimenter bias, you just don't believe there can be any other explanation for the result. So your conclusion is a result of your belief system (that there can be on other rational explanation, because you don't believe PSI is possible) not a result of an unbiased appraisal of the result itself. Unless somebody can point out where in the experiment the experimenter can influence the result, your argument fails. It cannot rest on your personal conviction that PSI "doesn't fit", and right now that is all that it rests on.

As for what I am doing here, I think it is perfectly valid to try to defend the claim that there is bias within the skeptical community when it comes to evaluating evidence for so-called paranormal phenomena. It is quite legitimate to examine this seperately from a discussion of the phenomena themselves.

 

[CFLarsen]

You didn't. I misread your post.

Thank you.

And I take your point. Why should beliefs and attitudes of the experimenter be having an effect on this particular experiment which is designed to test whether people can tell they are being stared at by a currently unknown mechanism.

Thank you.

But how did you reach that conclusion? You have put the cart before the horse. You have no evidence of experimenter bias, you just don't believe there can be any other explanation for the result. So your conclusion is a result of your belief system (that there can be on other rational explanation, because you don't believe PSI is possible) not a result of an unbiased appraisal of the result itself. Unless somebody can point out where in the experiment the experimenter can influence the result, your argument fails. It cannot rest on your personal conviction that PSI "doesn't fit", and right now that is all that it rests on.

No, I am not putting any cart before any horse. I am merely applying Occam's Razor here. I am also looking at what both Schlitz and Wiseman concludes.

Neither Schlitz or Wiseman thinks it is due to experimental artifact. Or caused by receivers' cheating. Or caused by experimenter fraud. Or that Schlitz was working with a more "psychically gifted" population than Wiseman was.

In fact, the whole idea was to study the phenomenon:

In conclusion, this study reveals the value of developing collaborative relationships between skeptics and psi proponents. Both authors view this study as an initial step in the investigation of experimenter effects in psi research. Additional experiments would further aid our understanding of such effects.
Source

But they don't think it is psi either.

As for what I am doing here, I think it is perfectly valid to try to defend the claim that there is bias within the skeptical community when it comes to evaluating evidence for so-called paranormal phenomena. It is quite legitimate to examine this seperately from a discussion of the phenomena themselves.

Sure, provided that such bias exists. You have yet to show it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, I am not putting any cart before any horse. I am merely applying Occam's Razor here. I am also looking at what both Schlitz and Wiseman concludes.

Personally, I think this debate will last for eternity anyway. Maybe that is just the way it has to be.