Aussie Thinker said:
The “experimenter” effect seems to evoke its own “interpretation” effect depending on our own bias.
Seems so, yes. We have to be careful here, because there are too many examples from the history of science of clear evidence that was ignored again and again and again because what it appeared to be suggesting was beyond what the scientist in question was capable of believing. The scientist just thinks "that can't be right", and moves on. Often it takes a maverick to believe his own eyes. I am not saying that this is definately what is happening here, but if it is then it wouldn't be the first time. But this is particularly tricky here because the "experimenter effect" could in itself be a prime example of an effect that parapsychologists have been claiming exists
for decades. The idea that a persons beliefs and attitude could have an effect on goings-on in the physical world is totally alien to materialistic science, but to many people with in an interest in parapsychology and the like, it is considered
common knowledge. So it is hardly surprising that when this effect turns up experimentally, and when further experiments are designed specifically to detect it, and repeatably
find it, that people like Lucianarchy and myself claim that scientific evidence of the effect is being ignored. From our POV, there is a case to answer. From the POV of the skeptic, who "knows" PSI is bulls**t, there couldn't possibly be a case to answer - it is a simple case of the experimenter making a mistake (even though the skeptic cannot point out where the mistake/bias occurs). Claus tried to argue that it was 'simply occams razor' to assume experimental error. It doesn't look that way to me. To me, occams razor says that we assume that the experimenter is competent and accept the result. But that is easy for me.
When I (and most sceptics it seems) see an experiment that produces the results differently (and positively) according to the experimenters viewpoint/bias I interpret it as a BAD EXPERIMENT..
When you see it you interpret it as an experimenter effect that INFLUENCES the result.
That is WHY we must remove experiments that can have a bias or an “effect”.
Yes, but unfortunately if you follow this line then
if the experimenters beliefs really do influence the outcome of the experiment then you have made it impossible to conduct a scientific experiment to find out! All you are doing is disallowing
on principle the specific phenomena that the parapsychologists set out to prove the existence of! It is perfectly understandable that they call foul. If you read any books on "magick", anything by Robert Anton Wilson, any books on eastern/"new age" creative visualisation, then you will discover that this is the meat and vegetables of practical applied "magick". According to these traditions, peoples beliefs, attitudes and thoughts can have far more profound effects on the physical world than altering some statistical outcome of an experiment - it is just the chain of cause-and-effect is hidden from us. None of this actually
contradicts science, but to the skeptic it contradicts his "common sense". What is particularly irksome is when the skeptic accuses the parapsychologists of inventing these theories for the specific purpose of escaping scientific scrutiny. Not only are they following the scientific method, but the phenomena in question has not been invented to frustrate the skeptics - knowledge of it is as old as the hills (except, of course, the phenomena doesn't exist
).
The same RV experiments could be done with a machine that measures and reports on any “psi” effect (clamminess/ perspiration etc)
Somebody has to be in charge of the experiment, don't they? If it could be
entirely automated then maybe it solves the problem. I wonder why it has not been done.
As they stand the experimenters cancel each other out and we have a net NO psi effect.
Well, since we can't agree on the rules, we can't agree on that conclusion. I think the parapsychologists have a case for saying that there is a psi effect, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for the skeptics to acknowledge it!
What was the defining issue/vision/experiment/experience that caused you to give credence to psi/immaterialism/ etc ?
Initially it was finally getting a grip on a number of scientific issues that I had always been told were unrelated, but which I now believe are very much related. This includes QM and the whole Schroedingers cat business, the question of how on earth subjective experiences (qualia) could possibly "arise" from inanimate physical matter (I now see this as being as believable as Jesus Christ "arising" from the dead - it is totally absurd), the question about why something exists instead of nothing, the cosmological anthropic problem (why the Universe
appears fine-tuned for our existence), the relationship between mathematical objects and physical existence. Most fundamental of all was the realisation that a principle of dynamic balance and polarity underlies absolutely everything, and the fact that I had to acknowledge that the ancient Taoists managed to come to precisely the same conclusion and encode it in their Yin/Yang symbol
without ever lifting a finger to do an experiment. I mean....
how did they figure it out?
Subsequently, I experienced things which made the above theorising unneccesary. Interestingly enough given the opening part of this post, my belief system had to change first - it was not until I was completely open to the possibility of paranormal phenomena existing that I experienced paranormal phenomena. As for what happened, it is my policy not to discuss it in public at this site because I do not wish to make claims I cannot back up experimentally. I had no control over what happened to me, and I have no wish to convince any skeptics that what I experienced was real. There is simply no point. As far as they are concerned, I am either lying or mistaken, because as far as they are concerned,
there are no paranormal phenomena.
