New PSI forum

[T'ai Chi]

Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times.

Can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?

Thanks.

 

[CFLarsen]

Some of the dataset, yes. All of them, no. Do I have a list or have kept the ones I've looked at a while back, no.

How can you possibly point to the content of datasets that you cannot identify? Do you go on memory?

There have been plenty done. You'll have to contact the authors of those experiments for the details you are looking for.

I will not do your homework for you. Are you able to list the exact experiments: What was tested, who tested it, how was it replicated? Yes or no?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)? Yes or no?

 

[T'ai Chi]

How can you possibly point to the content of datasets that you cannot identify?

Because I've seen some before.

I will not do your homework for you.

It is your homework. You're the one who is interested in seeing the specifics of the experiment, so you'll have to contact the researchers involved with the experiments.

Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)? Yes or no?

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because I've seen some before.

You mean to tell us that all this time, when you were referring to the Ganzfeld, auto-Ganzfeld, and blah blah blah, you were going on memory?

It is your homework. You're the one who is interested in seeing the specifics of the experiment, so you'll have to contact the researchers involved with the experiments.

Of course it is not my homework, it is yours. You're the one who claims that these experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated. You're the one who has to list them.

But, you can't. Or, refuse. Either way, your claim is unsupported by evidence.

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

OK, you are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

Let's sum up:

• You are not able to point to specific results from specific RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases, because you can not remember which you have looked at.
• You are not able to list the experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated.
• You are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

You may begin your arm waving.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You mean to tell us that all this time, when you were referring to the Ganzfeld, auto-Ganzfeld, and blah blah blah, you were going on memory?

Well I read them, yes.

By you stating "No, I have not looked at the actual databases.", and then saying "Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times." are you saying you magically debunked it without even seeing the data at all? At least I have seen it in the past, you haven't even seen it at all, according to your own words!

Now, Claus, can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?

Of course it is not my homework, it is yours. You're the one who claims that these experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated. You're the one who has to list them.

They have been listed. It is your homework to contact the authors if you are interested in specific details, such as the ones you are asking for.

OK, you are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).

Hey, you didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it, because I'm not sure what you are asking and I need you to be more specific:

You asked:

Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)?

And I said:

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

So can you not elaborate on your question? I'm trying to get to a point where I can understand you, so I can try to answer it. You're just not cooperating here. Oh well, I guess that more lists I guess for me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well I read them, yes.

No, you claim to have read some, yet you cannot name any of them.

By you stating "No, I have not looked at the actual databases.", and then saying "Same old tired crap, debunked a zillion times." are you saying you magically debunked it without even seeing the data at all? At least I have seen it in the past, you haven't even seen it at all, according to your own words!

Now, Claus, can you show where Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378 was "debunked", as you claimed?

Where exactly did I claim that I had debunked them? Stop inventing things.

They have been listed. It is your homework to contact the authors if you are interested in specific details, such as the ones you are asking for.

Where have they been listed? Not by you, as you should.

So can you not elaborate on your question? I'm trying to get to a point where I can understand you, so I can try to answer it. You're just not cooperating here. Oh well, I guess that more lists I guess for me.

Wave your arms all you like.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, you claim to have read some, yet you cannot name any of them.

They have already been named. I won't do your homework for you.

You haven't seen any of the data? I'm shocked!

Where exactly did I claim that I had debunked them? Stop inventing things.

Fine.

Where did anybody debunk Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378??? You claimed it has been debunked a zillion times... Evidence?

Wave your arms all you like.

Nope.

You asked:

Are you able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for)?

And I said:

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "the hypothesis". If you could give me an example with something a non-psi subject, that would be great.

Still waiting for you to elaborate on whatever it is you are trying to get across to me.

 

[apoger]

Still waiting for you to elaborate on whatever it is you are trying to get across to me.

Let me elaborate, if I may:

He is very simply asking you to define the topics (Psi and ESP).
This is the very first step in a coherent discussion. Defining our terms prevents people from hiding behind semantics and ambiguity.

 

[flyboy217]

Is it? I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone cut a woman in half. So it MUST be true, mustn't it?

Pardon? What do a magician's tricks have to do with the scientifically designed experiments he's talking about? Really, poor form.

 

[T'ai Chi]

[BWhere did anybody debunk Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363-378???

You claimed it has been debunked a zillion times...

Evidence?
[/B]

Still waiting.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Let me elaborate, if I may:

He is very simply asking you to define the topics (Psi and ESP).
This is the very first step in a coherent discussion. Defining our terms prevents people from hiding behind semantics and ambiguity.

Well he asked me to define the hypothesis... Different researchers are testing different hypotheses, so I'm not sure what he is specifically going for here.

If he wanted me to define the words psi and esp, he should have simply said so. I use the definition of May, et al:

Anomalous Cognition- information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Pardon? What do a magician's tricks have to do with the scientifically designed experiments he's talking about? Really, poor form.

Nothing at all. It is a typical distraction ploy.

Neither do any popular understand of "ESP" like on X-files or movies, etc. have anything to do with scientifically testing such things in a lab.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well he asked me to define the hypothesis... Different researchers are testing different hypotheses, so I'm not sure what he is specifically going for here.

Then list the different hypotheses that you know of, and explain those.

If he wanted me to define the words psi and esp, he should have simply said so.

No, I did not. You are perfectly aware that I did not. Again, please stop inventing things.

I use the definition of May, et al:

Anomalous Cognition- information transfer in which all known sensorial stimuli are absent.

Finally, we drag something out of you!

Now, please explain the hypotheses for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for) that you know of. After that, please describe how to test them.

And if we could avoid this tedious back-and-forth, it would be most productive. Sooner or later, you will have to come out in the open, and explain what your stance is on this.

Nothing at all. It is a typical distraction ploy.

It is not. It is a valid comparison: How will you tell if the lady is not cut in half?

Neither do any popular understand of "ESP" like on X-files or movies, etc. have anything to do with scientifically testing such things in a lab.

But you forget that the vast majority of paranormal claims do not take place in a lab setting. What are you going to do with those? Ignore them?

We still haven't gotten any further:

• You are not able to point to specific results from specific RNG, ganzfeld, and auto-ganzfeld cumulative databases, because you can not remember which you have looked at.
• You are not able to list the experiments with good controls show statistical significance that can be replicated.
• You are not able to explain the hypothesis for Extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (which is what "psi" stands for).
• You are not able to show where the experiments are listed.

But we do see a lot of arm waving.

 

[Lucianarchy]

OK, so we're getting together a database of the replications.

Which experiments run by any of the skeptical organisations do we have to chose from? Have we any sources, references or results to hand?

 

[Ed]

OK, so we're getting together a database of the replications.

Which experiments run by any of the skeptical organisations do we have to chose from? Have we any sources, references or results to hand?

You crack me up. Really, you do. I'm not being rude, I am actually sitting here with a smile on my lips. If only real life were as frothy as these discussions. Once I realized that none of this signifies anything at all my Wa was restored.

Carry on.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Ch. 1 of The Conscious Universe on line here:

http://www.psiresearch.org/Chapter1.html

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

 

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html articles written by the staff of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. The list follows:

Global Consciousness Project: An Independent Analysis of The 11 September 2001 Events, Edwin C. May; S. James P. Spottiswoode

A Search for Alpha Power Changes Associated with Anomalous Cognition, Edwin C. May; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Laura V. Faith

Anomalous Cognition Effect Size: Dependence on Sidereal Time and Solar Wind Parameters, S. James P. Spottiswoode; Edwin C. May

Apparent Association between Effect Size in Free Response Anomalous Cognition Experiments and Local Sidereal Time, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Applications of Decision Augmentation Theory,
Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; Christine L. James

Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a Model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena, Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode

Decision Augmentation Theory: Applications to the Random Number Generator Database, Edwin C. May, PhD; Jessica M. Utts, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode

Effect of Ambient Magnetic Field Fluctuation on Performance in a Free Response Anomalous Cognition Task: A Pilot Study,
S. James P. Spottiswoode

Geomagnetic Activity and Anomalous Cognition: A Preliminary Report of New Evidence, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Geomagnetic Fluctuations and Free Response Anomalous Cognition: A New Understanding, S. James P. Spottiswoode

Managing the Target Pool Bandwidth: Noise Reduction for Anomalous Cognition Experiments Edwin C. May, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Christine L James

Shannon Entropy as an Intrinsic Target Property: Toward a Reductionist Model of Anomalist Cognition 22 April 1994, Edwin C. May, PhD; S. James P. Spottiswoode; Christine L. James

 

[CFLarsen]

Ch. 1 of The Conscious Universe on line here:

http://www.psiresearch.org/Chapter1.html

In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science.

No. Skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is not impossible, but that it violates the Laws of Science.

This stage can last from years to centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom.

No. Once the data is in, ideas are accepted pretty fast. All it takes is evidence.

In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible, but it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak.

No. Skeptics will not say that an idea is impossible. Skeptics are very interested in seeing just one paranormal phenomenon proved. But it is correct that the effects seem to be extremely weak...

Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes that the idea is not only important, but its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined.

No. We do not see these effects become stronger and stronger, quite contrary: They become weaker and weaker, with increased controls.

Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who used to disavow any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

No. This is nothing but ad hominem.

In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence.

Hmmmmmm.......no.

 

[CFLarsen]

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html articles written by the staff of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. The list follows:

Yes, that's nice. Please explain the contents of these publications.

Where is the evidence?

 

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/investigators/

List of progressive sceptics.