New PSI forum

[Lucianarchy]

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

Is that really your skeptical argument? Either Wiseman or Schlitz committed fraud? Have you any rational reason to suppose such a thing?

"The receivers were run individually. On arriving at the laboratory, each one was met by either R. W. or M. S. Most were run by whichever of the experimenters was free to carry out the session; however, on a few occasions (e.g., when a receiver was a friend or colleague of one of the experimenters) the experimenter would be designated in advance of the trial. Thus most subjects were assigned to experimenters in an opportunistic way, rather than by one that was properly randomized (e.g., via random number tables or the output of a random number generator). The experimenter showed the subject to the receiver's room and explained the purpose of the experiment. Next, the experimenter attached electrodes to the first and third fingers of the participant's nondominant hand and made sure that the RelaxPlus system was correctly monitoring their EDA. The receivers were asked not to move their hand unnecessarily, nor to try to guess when they might be being stared at, but instead to! s! ! imply remain as open as possible to any remote influence. The experimenter entered the receiver's personal data in a computerized database, initiated the recording of EDA, started a stopwatch, and left the receiver's room.

It was important that receivers were not aware of the order of the stare and non-stare trials before the start of the experimental session. For this reason, the list of trial orders was only selected by the experimenter only after he or she had left the receiver's room. The experimenter then went to R. W.'s office, retrieved the folder containing the lists of thai orders, selected any sheet he or she wanted, and proceeded to the sender's room. Two minutes after initiating the recording of the receiver's EDA, the experimenter started to carry out the designated order of stare and non-stare trials; this order was presented to the experimenters in the form of a list. During stare trials, the experimenter quietly directed his/her attention toward the receiver; during non-stare trials the experimenter quietly directed this attention away from the receiver Each trial lasted 30 seconds. Throughout this time the receiver completed the belief-in-psi questionnaire and then read some magazines. All of the magazines were selected to be relatively bland in content in order to minimize possible effects on the receivers' EDA.

On completion of all 32 trials, the experimenter returned to the receiver's room, thanked the participant, and told him or her that feedback of the overall results would be given within the next few weeks. At the end of each experimental day, both experimenters copied that day's data (from their own participants as well as from the other experimenter's participants) onto their own floppy disk. [...] no evidence of any cheating was uncovered during the running of the experiment or analysis of the data. [...]

Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring.
Wiseman, Richard; Schlitz, Marilyn,
Journal of Parapsychology v61, n3

 

[Lucianarchy]

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.

Are you the only one on this forum who doesn't realise that that is an indo' dope-growing joke?!

Now, about your controls, Paj.

Is it double-blinded?
What other controls do you have in place?
How do we know you are not cheating?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Bull. Psychokinesis is part of psi.

Yes, CFL, but not the part I am citing as evidence or trying to defend.

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 thought I had.

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.

Why should an identical experiment behave differently depending on who is conducting it? This is a slightly different question. The skeptic involved in the research under discussion accepts a significant result but rejects that it is PSI.

As for "all of humanity", their business is their business. I'm not lifegazer.

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

What has newtons laws got to do with the remote staring experiment?

I have not erected any strawman....

A "strawman" is where somebody creates an easier target than the one on offer and then offers to shoot it down. I presented "evidence" to you, regarding a remote staring experiment. You told me that you couldn't accept the results because "PSI contradicts science". When I asked you why it contradicted science you cited psychokinesis as an example. This is a strawman, because you used PK, which was not being discussed, as a reason for claiming that remote staring experiments contradicted science. You cannot use arguments against PK as a reason for disbelieving remote staring experiments. That is a textbook example of a strawman argument. You aren't responding to my argument. You are arguing against something easier to shoot down, which I wasn't claiming.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Are you the only one on this forum who doesn't realise that that is an indo' dope-growing joke?!

So, you did not do any experiments at all? But you still felt the need to encourage people to buy them based on your "results" and advertised a site where they could do just that?

At what point did the humour come in?

 

[Lothian]

Is that really your skeptical argument? Either Wiseman or Schlitz committed fraud? Have you any rational reason to suppose such a thing? :

I don't think he is suggesting Wiseman committed fraud. Wiseman wasn't the person who was able to produce fantastic results, as long as no one was watching.

As long as no one was watching !!!!

 

[Lothian]

At what point did the humour come in?

I laugh at all her posts.

 

[Lucianarchy]

At what point did the humour come in?

The 'Durban' reference. 'the seeds come from your home town' or something like that..

Now, please provide ,as you promised, your methodology regarding your tests.

What are the controls?

Is it double blinded?

Or are you employing 'double standards'. ?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Is that really your skeptical argument? Either Wiseman or Schlitz committed fraud? Have you any rational reason to suppose such a thing?

In fact I specifically said that I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out a flaw in the published protocol. Do you deny it exists?

 

[Lucianarchy]

In fact I specifically said that I wasn't saying that. I was just pointing out a flaw in the published protocol. Do you deny it exists?

I don't think it is a reasonable or rational flaw in this case, no.

Are you going to answer the questions about your 'psychic book experiemnt', Paj? It is very relevant as we are discussing these sorts of experiments and the need for controls etc,. As you claim to be a skeptic yourself, and given your very vocal concerns about 'flaws' in experiments, I would be extremely interested to see what sort of methodology you use.

 

[CFLarsen]

JustGeoff,

Psi is a term that covers many phenomena. If you want to argue that there is evidence of a specific phenomenon, like remote viewing, then call it that.

Therefore, when I say "psi contradicts science", then you cannot complain if I take an example like psychokinesis, which is part of psi.

As for the RV video experiment: If we can affect anything - including the nervous system, which works by electricity (remember the poor frogs in class?) - across time and space, then the whole field of physics has to be re-evaluated. How can we know that Ørsted didn't move his compass needle by influencing the electrical current by thought? Why aren't sensitive pacemakers blowing up, when people are on TV? They are being stared at by millions. They should be reduced to quivering blobs of goo. Why doesn't it work then?

I would like to see the actual study. Do you have it handy?

 

[Lucianarchy]

I would like to see the actual study. Do you have it handy?

Claus, it is the Wiseman/Schlitz study on remote staring. If you just scroll up a bit, you will see all the references and sources.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I still don't understand how this was a joke:

Thanks for the coasters Roger. They work just great with wine. and my experiment with plants using the coaster to charge the feeding water is showing quite interesting results!

in fact, the results are so good, I recommend other open-minded sceptics buy some and try their own experiments.

http://www.galonja.co.uk/galonja_shop/catalog.asp?g_s_n=crlshop

Looks like a straightforward endorsement based on claims of research success to me.

OK, lets get to my book experiment. You see, the basic protocol has been at the top of the page all along:

I have selected 15 books from my bookshelf. One has been chosen randomly (by computer). Your mission: to guess which of the books I have placed on my computer monitor. You may do this by remote viewing, reading my mind, asking your spirit guide, any and all means are accepted short of breaking into my house. The books are presented here in random order.

So, the computer picks the book. They computer presents the books for selection. In that regard, it is double blind. The computer which presents the books does not know which book is selected (since a separate program does the selecting) and the receiver does not know either.

The only possible way that sensory leakage could occur is if you break into my house to see the book, or it I let it slip in my general communication on the internet or in my day to day life. Short of my remaining incommunicado for the duration of the experiment (8 months now) that is unavoidable, I think.
And of course, there is the issue that I could be lying about the whole thing and there is no book on my monitor.

So, in answer to your question, yes. I do have different standards for my experiment in comparison to the Wiseman test. And you know why? Because, amazing though it may seem, my test is JUST A BIT OF FUN!

It's not serious research. I have no desire for it to be taken seriously. That was never the intention when the protocols were being discussed on this forum all that time ago.

It's not going to be published in a journal. I am not using it as the basis for a "humourous" endorsement of a commercial product. I am not even using it as the basis of an announcement on the effectiveness of PSI. I only publish the results, and an occasional update on the state of those results. Of course, I know I'm not cheating, but if other people don't trust me I don't have a problem with that.

But I have to ask, if you have a problem with this protocol why didn't you complain when it was being designed? In fact, you must have thought it was worth taking part in because you did so. 5 times.
In fact, you only started complaining when you started getting it wrong.

And lastly, as proof that my test is to be trusted, I am willing to invite any certified journalists to come and watch a video tape of me performing my experiment. Now, since that's good enough for you as far as Gary Schwartz is concerned, I assume you are now satisfied that my test is legit?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I don't think it is a reasonable or rational flaw in this case, no.

Really? And yet this same perceived flaw was what caused you to call my test "laughably corrupt"?

Amazing.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Psi is a term that covers many phenomena.
If you want to argue that there is evidence of a specific phenomenon, like remote viewing, then call it that.

I have called it that, Claus. There has been nothing ambiguous or unclear about my posts. I am talking about an experiment conducted by Wiseman and Schlitz to detect whether subjects autonomous nervous systems respond to them being stared at via a video link. I really do not know how I could have been any clearer.

As for the RV video experiment: If we can affect anything - including the nervous system, which works by electricity (remember the poor frogs in class?) - across time and space, then the whole field of physics has to be re-evaluated.

Quite possibly some fields of science may have to be re-evaluated if certain types of PSI turn out to be real. That is called scientific progress. What is not true is that the experiment in questions contradicts known science. It simply doesn't.

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

Not what is being discussed, Claus.

Why aren't sensitive pacemakers blowing up, when people are on TV?

Not what is being discussed, Claus.

They are being stared at by millions. They should be reduced to quivering blobs of goo. Why doesn't it work then?

Again, not what is being discussed. Can we stick to the EVIDENCE supplied? You know - the EVIDENCE you asked for and have resolutely ignoring for the past two pages?

I would like to see the actual study. Do you have it handy? [/B]

No, because I read about in a copy of New Scientist, but I can go have a look for it. Actually, I thought Lucianarchy had already provided a link.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I still don't understand how this was a joke:

Originally posted by Beancounter - Location: Durban

I've not been around long enough to spot the hoaxes.

L, is this true? do you have a tendancy to take the p!ss for the fun of it?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Not a tendancy. Although, I admit that I did once suggest that Mars was inhabited by giant worms who protected themselves with 'mind rays'. You'd be surprised how many tried to argue against that. Getting back to the subject at hand, perhaps it is synchronistic, but I believe the the seed stock currently undergoing rigorous testing comes from your home town.

BTW, thanks for your comments about your 'experiment'. OK, I see it's a bit of fun now and not to be taken seriously, as the controls are indeed laughably corrupt. BTW, I did not even take your test 5 times, so there's one flaw. If you would like to PM me the details of whoever did so under my name, I'd be more than interested to see them.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Here you go :

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

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I would not like to do that, no.

But, now that you understand my position, can you see how the same things apply to the Wiseman test? To use one of your terms, the individual experimenter has "ownership" of the test (in that they are unmonitored and control all the data for some time). There are no controls to prevent this.

So why is it more credible than my little bit of fun?

 

[Lucianarchy]

I would not like to do that, no.

Why not? You have claimed that I took your test five times. I did not. You made the claim, Paj. Please do the courtesy of PMing me the evidence you claim you have.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Then I revise my claim until I am able to examine the IP addresses more thoroughly. Someone claiming to be you took the test 5 times. If you would like to PM me your usual IP I would be happy to let you know more, but I will not send you the IPs.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Then I revise my claim until I am able to examine the IP addresses more thoroughly. Someone claiming to be you took the test 5 times. If you would like to PM me your usual IP I would be happy to let you know more, but I will not send you the IPs.

I don't understand why you won't provide me with the IP records of all the applicants who took the test under my name?