New PSI forum

[UndercoverElephant]

As I have mentioned before, paranormal research is the only field of inquiry where, when I begin reading a paper, I ask myself "is this SOB lieing?". The fault lies with the practitioners and proponents.

....and the same is true of religion. But just because the catholic church became an obscene monster does not mean that Christianity itself was always that way, and just because Uri Geller is a transparent fraud does not mean that all PSI researchers are equally fraudulent.

My experience is that believers/proponents are not after truth, they are after positive results....

But don't you think that some of your own responses in this thread indicate that you yourself are only after negative results?

To be truly impartial I think you have to be genuinely prepared to accept the results be they positive or negative.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


....and the same is true of religion. But just because the catholic church became an obscene monster does not mean that Christianity itself was always that way, and just because Uri Geller is a transparent fraud does not mean that all PSI researchers are equally fraudulent.

So where is Psi? You make it sound that it too is an obscene monster



But don't you think that some of your own responses in this thread indicate that you yourself are only after negative results?

No

To be truly impartial I think you have to be genuinely prepared to accept the results be they positive or negative.

Begs the question. Is the research any good? Did you read my piece about my take of the area? [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[CFLarsen]

According to you, there is no evidence of PSI, and no evidence of aliens.

No, not according to me. There is no evidence of PSI, and there is no evidence of aliens. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

You justify your different beliefs about the likelihood of their existence not on the evidence, but because you say that PSI "is in conflict with scientific knowledge" and that ET isn't. I don't actually see how many forms of PSI (like knowing you are being stared at through a video camera) is in conflict with current scientific knowledge. It is not. It is merely not predicted by current scientific theories, and there is no currently known physical mechanism. I think the real difference is that according to your current understanding of what reality is, and how it works, you cannot imagine how or why such a mechanism should exist. That is different to "being in conflict". Maybe some things, like perpetual motion machines, are in conflict with current science - but not the PSI effects we have been discussing.

You are wrong. Psi is in conflict with scientific knowledge.

If an object can be moved by thought alone, then Newton's laws would be invalid: E.g. objects moving uniformly would not remain in that state of motion. Newton's laws are very solid. We can send satellites in orbit around the globe, we can send planes flying, we can shoot cannonballs with great accuracy.

The law of gravity would be invalid: If an object can be moved by thought alone, a ball would reach different distances, when thrown. It does not.

The gas laws would be invalid: If a gas molecule can be moved by thought alone, we would see an increase in temperature. We do not. We base a lot of industries and technologies on the gas laws. It would be impossible to have a pressure cooker in your kitchen, or get a steam train to run.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

[Ed]

we can shoot cannonballs with great accuracy.

The Danish Army still uses cannonballs? No wonder those damn Tundra Mammoths (tm) are running wild.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Danish Army still uses cannonballs? No wonder those damn Tundra Mammoths (tm) are running wild.

Grenades, then!

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So where is Psi? You make it sound that it too is an obscene monster

It is monstrous when it is both fraudulent and takes of advantage of peoples ignorance for profit or personal gain. But it is a wide field, and borders on things like genuine science, genuine medicine, genuine spirituality and many other things. I think it is too broad a field to describe it as obscene as a whole.

Begs the question. Is the research any good? Did you read my piece about my take of the area?

I don't really understand why you are questioning the veracity of the research. We have no reason to say "it's no good". You still seem to be pointing the finger for no more reason other than its PSI research and there is a positive result. You cannot just disallow all positive results as "bad science". You have to provide a reason for why you believe the research is no good.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, not according to me. There is no evidence of PSI, and there is no evidence of aliens. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

Well, no it isn't. It is hotly disputed. Neither you nor I are in a position to offer anything more than an opinion on that question. As you say : according to you there is no evidence. And you cannot argue "anyone who disputes it is a fraud or is incompetent", because that is the same as discounting all positives as fraud and incompetence for no more reason than they are positives and you don't believe PSI exists.

You kind of contradicted yourself there. If it is only according to you then, by definition, it is not a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. It is not according to me.

You are wrong. Psi is in conflict with scientific knowledge.

How so?

We are talking about whether or not peoples autonomous nervous system responds when they are being remotely stared at. If it were true, please explain how this conflicts with scientific knowledge. I see no conflict.

If an object can be moved by thought alone, then Newton's laws would be invalid: E.g. objects moving uniformly would not remain in that state of motion. Newton's laws are very solid. We can send satellites in orbit around the globe, we can send planes flying, we can shoot cannonballs with great accuracy.

But we aren't discussing psychokinesis, are we?

Looks like a strawman argument to me.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

No. Fraud is fraud, incompetence is incompetence, and neither are examples of "experimenter effect".

And how do you tell the difference when there are no controls to prevent either?

 

[Ed]

It is monstrous when it is both fraudulent and takes of advantage of peoples ignorance for profit or personal gain. But it is a wide field, and borders on things like genuine science, genuine medicine, genuine spirituality and many other things. I think it is too broad a field to describe it as obscene as a whole.



I don't really understand why you are questioning the veracity of the research. We have no reason to say "it's no good". You still seem to be pointing the finger for no more reason other than its PSI research and there is a positive result. You cannot just disallow all positive results as "bad science". You have to provide a reason for why you believe the research is no good.

Questionable. I say questionable.

Why? Because it is not conducted as a profession. There is no policing. It also has a history of, ahem, odd findings.

How do I know that a particular piece of research is Targian or not? Can I rely on practitioners to keep people honest and professional? Why? Can you give me any examples where fraudulent research was exposed? If so, what are those researcher doing today?

I have ample reason to find the research suspect. Am I wrong?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, no it isn't. It is hotly disputed.

What are the disputes based on, evidence or opinion?

Neither you nor I are in a position to offer anything more than an opinion on that question. As you say : according to you there is no evidence.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is no evidence. If you think there is, let's see it.

And you cannot argue "anyone who disputes it is a fraud or is incompetent", because that is the same as discounting all positives as fraud and incompetence for no more reason than they are positives and you don't believe PSI exists.

What "positives"? Are you talking about evidence? If so, let's see it.

You kind of contradicted yourself there. If it is only according to you then, by definition, it is not a fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. It is not according to me.

No, I did not contradict myself, because it was not my stance that it was according to me.

How so?

We are talking about whether or not peoples autonomous nervous system responds when they are being remotely stared at. If it were true, please explain how this conflicts with scientific knowledge. I see no conflict.

First things first. Please address my examples.

But we aren't discussing psychokinesis, are we?

Yes, psychokinesis is part of psi.

Looks like a strawman argument to me.

Not at all.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Questionable. I say questionable.

Why? Because it is not conducted as a profession.

This is a new argument. Why? The experiments we are talking about were conducted by professionals, Ed. What reason have you to suggest they weren't? It feels like I am being given one reason after another to doubt that it is a genuine result.

There is no policing. It also has a history of, ahem, odd findings.

Again, you cannot dismiss this research because the field of PSI has produced "odd findings". And this particular research was peer reviewed.

How do I know that a particular piece of research is Targian or not? Can I rely on practitioners to keep people honest and professional? Why? Can you give me any examples where fraudulent research was exposed? If so, what are those researcher doing today?

I don't see what any of this has to do with what we are discussing. You are still trying to dismiss the whole field, and not discussing the case in question.

I have ample reason to find the research suspect. Am I wrong?

I think you might be being a little one-sided in your attitude.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What are the disputes based on, evidence or opinion?

Evidence, CFLarsen. I don't see what is wrong with research we have been discussing. All the reasons being given by you and Ed for dismissing the results are flaky. I am disputing your reasons for dismissing this result, with good reason. You just tried to argue that the result contradicted science, and then backed it up by making an argument about psycho-kinesis, which is not even what we were talking about.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that there is no evidence. If you think there is, let's see it.

We are discussing research that has looked for an "experimenter effect" and found it. I think you are looking at the evidence, but not accepting it, and we have discussed the reasons why.

What "positives"? Are you talking about evidence? If so, let's see it.

I am talking about the fact that the same experiment, conducted in the same labs, on the same subjects, by different people, produced different results. The experiment was designed to detect/eliminate precisely this effect, which was why it was carried out by two different people on the same subjects in the same lab. There was a clear positive result, which was even accepted by the skeptic in question, he just hasn't accepted that this is PSI, although he has not explained what else it might be. That is evidence. The scientific method was followed, and it produced a positive result. What is the problem?

First things first. Please address my examples.

Yes, psychokinesis is part of psi.

But the experiments I am giving you as examples of evidence aren't about psychokineses. I have no wish to defend a strawman you have erected. I am perfectly aware that PK contradicts Newton's Laws!

 

[Lucianarchy]

So should scientific research all hinge on the honesty of the individual experimenter? Shouldn't there be controls to remove this necessity?

What do you claim is wrong about the controls?

Since you bring the subject up, and I am sure you are not one for double-standards, but: Does your book experiment have any controls? Is it even double blinded? Perhaps you would be good enough to publish yor methodology for peer review, here, in front of skeptics.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence, CFLarsen. I don't see what is wrong with research we have been discussing. All the reasons being given by you and Ed for dismissing the results are flaky. I am disputing your reasons for dismissing this result, with good reason. You just tried to argue that the result contradicted science, and then backed it up by making an argument about psycho-kinesis, which is not even what we were talking about.

Bull. Psychokinesis is part of psi. If you have evidence, show it. Don't complain that skeptics are dismissing the evidence, just show the evidence. Let's examine the evidence.

We are discussing research that has looked for an "experimenter effect" and found it. I think you are looking at the evidence, but not accepting it, and we have discussed the reasons why.

No, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the evidence of psi, not the research for psi. I think you are talking around the issue, and not addressing it.

Show the evidence, and let's talk about that.

I am talking about the fact that the same experiment, conducted in the same labs, on the same subjects, by different people, produced different results. The experiment was designed to detect/eliminate precisely this effect, which was why it was carried out by two different people on the same subjects in the same lab. There was a clear positive result, which was even accepted by the skeptic in question, he just hasn't accepted that this is PSI, although he has not explained what else it might be. That is evidence. The scientific method was followed, and it produced a positive result. What is the problem?

The problem is that I don't see any positive evidence of psi in this. Perhaps you can point it out? Not just to me, but to all of humanity.

But the experiments I am giving you as examples of evidence aren't about psychokineses. I have no wish to defend a strawman you have erected. I am perfectly aware that PK contradicts Newton's Laws!

Good! Then, please explain why Newton's laws still are valid, if psi exists.

I have not erected any strawman, I have merely pointed out the consequences if psi existed. Glad to see you agree with that. However, psycho-kinesis is part of psi, no matter what you say.

If you want to defend the evidence of psi, we need to see it first. Would you care to present it?

The onus is on you.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Claus, what on earth is wrong with the Wiseman / Schlitz experiments?

 

[flyboy217]

Bull. Psychokinesis is part of psi. If you have evidence, show it. Don't complain that skeptics are dismissing the evidence, just show the evidence. Let's examine the evidence.

I don't know if it's on purpose, but you're missing his point entirely. Let me attempt a paraphrase:

Geoff: "Let us discuss the experimenter effect."
Larsen: "Let's talk about psi"
Geoff: "Let's first discuss the experimenter effect"
Larsen: "But PK is part of psi."
Geoff: "I'm not talking about PK. Why are you? I'm talking about the experimenter effect."
Larsen: "I'm telling you, PK is clearly bunk. Therefore all of psi is bunk. Stop avoiding the issue."

etc.

No, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the evidence of psi, not the research for psi. I think you are talking around the issue, and not addressing it.

Show the evidence, and let's talk about that.

I think we are discussing the experimenter effect, not some generalized theory of psi that includes PK, which you are for some reason trying to debunk.

The problem is that I don't see any positive evidence of psi in this. Perhaps you can point it out? Not just to me, but to all of humanity.

Good! Then, please explain why Newton's laws still are valid, if psi exists.

Eh? He just said PK contradicts Newton, and that he's not talking about PK. He wants to know why the experimenter effect contradicts science.

I have not erected any strawman, I have merely pointed out the consequences if psi existed. Glad to see you agree with that. However, psycho-kinesis is part of psi, no matter what you say.

If you want to defend the evidence of psi, we need to see it first. Would you care to present it?

The onus is on you.

PK is a strawman. You accuse him of supporting PK, when he has made no such claim.

 

[Lucianarchy]

R.W's M.S.'s All
participants participants participants

Mean 1.94 -.81 .56
Standard deviation (SD) 4.22 4.12 4.33
Correlation (r) -.15 .32 .15
(Corrected for ties)
z score -.58 1.23 .84
p value, two-tailed .56 .22 .39

DISCUSSION

Subjects run by R. W. did not respond differently to stare and non-stare trials. In contrast, participants run by M. S. were significantly more activated in stare than non-stare trials.

http://www.hf.caltech.edu/ctt/show212/article2.shtml

 

[TheBoyPaj]

What do you claim is wrong about the controls?

The fact that each experimenter was left alone with the data, unmonitored, after each trial had been completed.

Since you bring the subject up, and I am sure you are not one for double-standards, but: Does your book experiment have any controls? Is it even double blinded? Perhaps you would be good enough to publish yor methodology for peer review, here, in front of skeptics.

Ah! My prediction came true! Truly I have super powers.

But have you forgotten? I have already promised to do this once you have done the same for your magnetic coaster experiment. One thing at a time, Luci.

 

[Lucianarchy]

"[...With a post-doc fellowship from Stanford University, Schlitz teamed up with Stephen LaBerge to study closely the effects of remote staring. They set up their experiment so that in one room a person was being monitored by a video camera, while in another room someone intermittently stared at that person through the video. Thus, the two participants were completely shielded from each other’s sense perception. Again, the person being stared at showed a higher galvanic skin response and greater autonomic nervous activity during the periods when stared at. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in ANS when people were being stared at.

What made these results even more notable was what happened next. To ensure the validity of her data, Schlitz enrolled the assistance of a skeptical researcher from England, named Richard Wiseman. Following all of the same protocols that Schlitz had, Wiseman did not get any significant results. To see if he had done anything different, Schlitz went to England and did the experiment together with Wiseman. What they found is that the subjects who did the experiment with Schlitz produced significant results, while Wiseman’s did not. These findings were repeated in a second study conducted in Schlitz’ lab in California. Altogether, this has lead Schlitz to postulate that there is a significant "experimenter effect" that is occurring. She believes that it is likely that her own openness and positivity, in contrast to Wiseman’s skepticism, had, in fact, influenced their results. Even the skeptical Wiseman now believes there is something significant going on in the studies, although he is not certain what it is yet. After hearing about the results of their series of experiments, George Leonard coined the term "the Schlitz-Wiseman Effect" to describe how the intentions of the experimenter have a definite influence upon the results. [...]"

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=8&pageid=77&pgtype=1

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes, I am aware of that. Where is the bit describing the control to stop the experimenter directly altering the data?