PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[steenkh]

The entire thing is worthless because they seem to think that there is actually evidence for the paranormal. Any theory based on this is wrong, becaues no such evidence exists.

Exactly. It seems to put the cart before the horse when you start making elaborate theories before you have any evidence that there is a phenomenon to explain.

I should also point out that it is written by a computer scientist, with no education in physics whatsoever (his CV is here), so expecting him to understand advanced quantum mechanics is fairly silly.

I do not think I agree here. While formal education can be regarded as a certificate that the topic is understood, you cannot conclude the other way round that no formal education means that the subject is not understood.

I cannot reject Mr. Shoup's theories out of hand, but I am wary that he might not understand as much as he purports.

 

[Cuddles]

I do not think I agree here. While formal education can be regarded as a certificate that the topic is understood, you cannot conclude the other way round that no formal education means that the subject is not understood.

Looking at some of his other papers I have to admit that I was wrong here, it appears that he does understand a lot more than I gave him credit for. Where he learned it without getting some kind of qualification I have no idea.

However, when he claims that psi can be explained by current physics, he is simply talking compete and utter cow poo for the entire paper. The entire paper does not actually have any connection to the real world, even according to him, it is simply a guess at whether causality might be violated, if a certain hypothetical test could be performed. Even though he mentions the word "quantum", there is no quantum physics involved, and in fact no physics of any kind at all, just some vague nonsense based on information and logic.

 

[davidsmith73]

Does anyone know which binary scoring method they used in FIDO and distributive trials? Originally, there were five (A,B,C,D and E, as described on page 213 of the pdf) but there's only one in the later part of the paper.

From the bottom of page 224 for the FIDO:

"Rather than attempting to establish a priori probabilities for these more complex descriptor options, the FIDO calculations were carried out using a method similar to binary Method A, which simply divided the sum of the descriptor scores by the total number of descriptors, ignoring any a priori descriptor probabilities."

and page 227 for the distributive:

"As before, the sum of the individual descriptor scores constituted the total score for a given trial, and the scores of the five matched trials were compared with those of the 20 mismatched scores to determine the statistical merit of each series."

which I think means that they applied the same method as for FIDO.

I presume they applied this method to the binary-treated FIDO and distributive data as well.

 

[davidsmith73]

Because if you want to argue that there is scientific evidence of remote viewing, you have to explain why your perception of science differs so much from the accepted one.

When you refer to my perception of science, are you talking about my perception of the process of science or my perception of scientific knowledge?

Rubbish. Of course we have scientific explanations for what happens: When we apply sound science to PEARs data, we find nothing. There is nothing unexplained.

I was refering to the other experiments that I gave a link to.

As PEAR themselves have admitted.

No they did not, as I and Esrby have pointed out.

Do you acknowledge that, the overall results were at chance level? Yes or no.

No. This has been explained so many times to you and Zep that its getting boring.

I've explained enough for you to understand.

You clearly can't anwer my question as to what objective measurements define the "paranormal" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not.

I can point you many detailed descriptions of what objective measurements define "gravity" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not.

Your childish method of attempting to refute my point about the term "paranormal" is invalid.

I can make a pin hover, thereby negating gravity.

How does that negate gravity?

Here's a hint. It's in the dictionary. When a word is defined in the dictionary, what does that tell you about the acceptance of the word? Is it because 1 person uses it, or is it because it is the commonly accepted meaning?

Words can change their meaning over time:

http://ezinearticles.com/?-Etymology--How-Words-Change-Over-Time&id=12709

It is possible that the commonly accepted meaning of the word "supernatural" is not the one in the dictionary, ie the dictionary has not been updated to take this into account. Hence why I said I don't know.

Thank you for clarifying. "Paranormal", "strong atheism"...what's next?

I never refused to use the term "strong atheism".

Don't you see? This is the ultimate cop-out, David. Anything you are not "happy with", you simply discard, and invent a new definition that suits your argument.

The only example so far is "paranormal" and I'm not inventing a definition for it.

You are confusing "holding a definition" with "believing in it". Dawkins does hold a definition of God - he uses the same as everyone else, but he just doesn't believe it.

Do you understand the difference?

As I said in my last post to you, I was refering to the type of atheism that is defined by the fact that the atheist holds no definition of god and thus regards the term as meaningless. You told me Dawkins does not apply to this type of atheism.

 

[davidsmith73]

It is referring to the totality of the trials - the original five methods, plus the final effort to try and get some sense out of the data.

Its refering to their entire database. See Table 6.

Why does the paper REPEAT this assertion elsewhere?
And why is this reference to a non-result in the abstract right up front?

So your criticism is now that PEAR are too open about their results??!!!

If there WERE positive results as you say, surely none of this would be at all necessary - don't you agree?

No I don't agree! The drop in effect sizez they observed is a major finding of their program. To not mention it would be ignoring a major aspect of their results.

LOL. Imagine the flapping about from SkepticReport if it was found out subsequently that PEAR had not mentioned this drop in effect sizes.

 

[CFLarsen]

When you refer to my perception of science, are you talking about my perception of the process of science or my perception of scientific knowledge?

Both.

I was refering to the other experiments that I gave a link to.

There is nothing that indicate the evidence of remote viewing in those either.

No they did not, as I and Esrby have pointed out.

I am talking about the overall results.

No. This has been explained so many times to you and Zep that its getting boring.

What about this quote is it you don't understand?

...the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance.

What word have you suddenly developed a problem with?

You clearly can't anwer my question as to what objective measurements define the "paranormal" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not.

I can point you many detailed descriptions of what objective measurements define "gravity" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not.

Your childish method of attempting to refute my point about the term "paranormal" is invalid.

You are a hypocrite. You offer a half-baked explanation/excuse for rejecting the term "paranormal", but when exactly the same kind of explanation/excuse is offered for "gravity", you merely dismiss it.

How does that negate gravity?

Who said anything about negating it?

Words can change their meaning over time:

http://ezinearticles.com/?-Etymology--How-Words-Change-Over-Time&id=12709

Yes, indeed. But why do you think we have dictionaries, David?

It is possible that the commonly accepted meaning of the word "supernatural" is not the one in the dictionary, ie the dictionary has not been updated to take this into account. Hence why I said I don't know.

What do you base that on? Wishful thinking? Merely casting doubt about something without reason is just a cheap way of getting out of any debate.

I never refused to use the term "strong atheism".

The only example so far is "paranormal" and I'm not inventing a definition for it.

"So far"? Thanks for proving my point, David.

As I said in my last post to you, I was refering to the type of atheism that is defined by the fact that the atheist holds no definition of god and thus regards the term as meaningless. You told me Dawkins does not apply to this type of atheism.

It isn't about what type of atheism it is. It is about you confusing "holding a definition" with "believing in it". Dawkins does hold a definition of God - he uses the same as everyone else, but he just doesn't believe it.

Do you understand the difference between "holding a definition" and "believing in it"?

LOL. Imagine the flapping about from SkepticReport if it was found out subsequently that PEAR had not mentioned this drop in effect sizes.

What kind of snooty comment is that?

 

[Yahzi]

...

Sorry if this was brought up before, but has anyone explained Las Vegas yet?

The fact that Nevada law regulates gaming (specifically slot machines) in accordance with strict laws of physics and probability, and yet casinos are not losing money, would strongly imply that strict laws of physics and probability accurately describe random events (such as slot machines).

Is there something I am missing here?

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry if this was brought up before, but has anyone explained Las Vegas yet?

The fact that Nevada law regulates gaming (specifically slot machines) in accordance with strict laws of physics and probability, and yet casinos are not losing money, would strongly imply that strict laws of physics and probability accurately describe random events (such as slot machines).

Is there something I am missing here?

Only that the psi effect is indistinguishable from chance.

But then again, I think you already knew that...

 

[davidsmith73]

Both.

In that case, my perception of the scientific method does not differ from the accepted one and my perception of scientific knowledge is irrelavent to the evidence for remote viewing since the evidence for remote viewing is based on the scientific method.

There is nothing that indicate the evidence of remote viewing in those either.

What is wrong with the papers?

I am talking about the overall results.

No, you are refering to the results of the distributive data. You may think that you are refering to the overall results but anyone who reads the paper properly would understand your error.

What about this quote is it you don't understand?

Nothing. Its just that this quote refers to the overall results of the distributive data which is a subset of their entire database. I really think you are pulling my leg now with this.

You are a hypocrite. You offer a half-baked explanation/excuse for rejecting the term "paranormal", but when exactly the same kind of explanation/excuse is offered for "gravity", you merely dismiss it.

I dismiss your explanation because you cannot give any explanation of what objective measurements define the "paranormal" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not.

And I can give an explanation of what objective measurements define gravity and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not.

Who said anything about negating it?

You did in the last post. Are you pulling my leg?

Yes, indeed. But why do you think we have dictionaries, David?

To learn the meaning of words.

What do you base that on?

The fact that words change their meaning over time.

Merely casting doubt about something without reason is just a cheap way of getting out of any debate.

The reason was the fact that words change their meaning over time.

"So far"? Thanks for proving my point, David.

It is entirely appropriate to point out the meaninglessness of terms you may use in the future that have no meaning and serve no purpose in the discussion.

It isn't about what type of atheism it is.

Yes it is.

It is about you confusing "holding a definition" with "believing in it".

I am not confusing these two phrases. Please point out where I have done.

Dawkins does hold a definition of God - he uses the same as everyone else, but he just doesn't believe it.

I never said he didn't hold a definition of god. Please show me where I said he did. I was talking about a different type of atheist than the one you told me Dawkins is. As I said, the type of atheist Dawkins is not would refuse to use the term god in a discusion because they would regard the term as meaningless.

What kind of snooty comment is that?

Its the kind of comment that describes how much of a flap there would be at SkepticReport if someone subsequently found that PEAR had published that paper without mentioning the drop in effect sizes, while just mentioning the overall significant results.

 

[davidsmith73]

Sorry if this was brought up before, but has anyone explained Las Vegas yet?

The fact that Nevada law regulates gaming (specifically slot machines) in accordance with strict laws of physics and probability, and yet casinos are not losing money, would strongly imply that strict laws of physics and probability accurately describe random events (such as slot machines).

Is there something I am missing here?

The odds are heavily stacked in the favour of the casino and experiments suggest that PK effects are weak. So the effect is probably not big enough to overcome the odds.

 

[CFLarsen]

In that case, my perception of the scientific method does not differ from the accepted one

Oh, so now you have no problems using the accepted definition?

and my perception of scientific knowledge is irrelavent to the evidence for remote viewing since the evidence for remote viewing is based on the scientific method.

No. Your perception of scientific knowledge is crucial, if you want to argue that there is scientific evidence of remote viewing.

You can't point to science without understanding what science is. You clearly have a perverted perception of what science is: You design it so it will show evidence of remote viewing. It doesn't work that way.

What is wrong with the papers?

Where's the evidence? I don't see it. Do you?

No, you are refering to the results of the distributive data. You may think that you are refering to the overall results but anyone who reads the paper properly would understand your error.

No, David. There is nothing to misunderstand or massage into meaning what you want it to mean. There is no evidence of remote viewing.

Nothing. Its just that this quote refers to the overall results of the distributive data which is a subset of their entire database. I really think you are pulling my leg now with this.

No, I am not. I am pointing out that PEAR has admitted that they didn't find anything.

I dismiss your explanation because you cannot give any explanation of what objective measurements define the "paranormal" and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not.

And I can give an explanation of what objective measurements define gravity and why it is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not.

You are a hypocrite, David.

You did in the last post. Are you pulling my leg?

Yes, a bit. You see, I am not negating gravity as such. I am just using forces to...since you are so fond of discarding commonly understood terms...circumvent gravity.

Yes, by using magnets. The point is, gravity is not absolute, it doesn't always make things fall down. If you have a force that you don't know about, you can't know what is preventing the pin from falling down.

To learn the meaning of words.

Exactly, David! And what happens if we don't use the meaning of a word that everyone understand and accept, but instead make up our own definitions, on-the-fly, depending on the situation we are in?

The fact that words change their meaning over time.

The reason was the fact that words change their meaning over time.

Wrong. Words can change their meaning over time. That doesn't give you the right to discard any meaning of any word at any time. Especially when you are in trouble.

It is entirely appropriate to point out the meaninglessness of terms you may use in the future that have no meaning and serve no purpose in the discussion.

And it is entirely inappropriate to deem a term meaningless, merely because the term shows you are wrong.

Do you understand, David? You can't deem a term meaningless whenever you are in trouble.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. It's about the difference between accepting the meaning of a term, and believing in it.

I am not confusing these two phrases. Please point out where I have done.

You think that, because Dawkins doesn't believe in God, he uses a different definition than believers. He does not.

I never said he didn't hold a definition of god. Please show me where I said he did. I was talking about a different type of atheist than the one you told me Dawkins is. As I said, the type of atheist Dawkins is not would refuse to use the term god in a discusion because they would regard the term as meaningless.

But we are not discussing non-Dawkins-type atheists. We are discussing Dawkins-type atheists.

Do Dawkins use the term "God" in the same manner as believers in "God"? Educate yourself, David. Do a little digging. Do some work to support your contentions.

Its the kind of comment that describes how much of a flap there would be at SkepticReport if someone subsequently found that PEAR had published that paper without mentioning the drop in effect sizes, while just mentioning the overall significant results.

How do you know how much "flap" there would be at SkepticReport?

The odds are heavily stacked in the favour of the casino and experiments suggest that PK effects are weak. So the effect is probably not big enough to overcome the odds.

How are the odds stacked at casinos? Be precise, please.

 

[davidsmith73]

Oh, so now you have no problems using the accepted definition?

Correct, because the accepted definition of the scientific method is meaningful.

No. Your perception of scientific knowledge is crucial, if you want to argue that there is scientific evidence of remote viewing.

I meant scientific knowledge in the sense of the objects of scientific knowledge, such as the scientific knowledge that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. In this sense, my perception of scientific knowledge is irrelavent to the scientific method itself. You are talking about the meaning of the word scientific knowledge itself. Which is fine, I'll respond to that too. Scientific knowledge as a concept is based on the scientific method. My perception of both does not differ from the accepted one as far as I know.

In what way do you think it differs?

You can't point to science without understanding what science is. You clearly have a perverted perception of what science is: You design it so it will show evidence of remote viewing.

How on earth have I done that?

Where's the evidence? I don't see it. Do you?

I see it. In the papers.

No, David. There is nothing to misunderstand or massage into meaning what you want it to mean.

Yes there is. You were refering to the results of the distributive data which were a subset of the overall data.

No, I am not. I am pointing out that PEAR has admitted that they didn't find anything.

But they didn't. They reported an overall positive and significant result. You keep refering to a quote that refers to the results of a subset of data. To regard that subset as the overall result is data selection.

You are a hypocrite, David.

Just explain where I've gone wrong. Oh, wait, you can't.

Yes, a bit. You see, I am not negating gravity as such. I am just using forces to...since you are so fond of discarding commonly understood terms...circumvent gravity.

Yes, by using magnets. The point is, gravity is not absolute, it doesn't always make things fall down. If you have a force that you don't know about, you can't know what is preventing the pin from falling down.

Ok, you are not negating gravity and you haven't made the term gravity meaningless here. You've just described another kind of physical force.

Exactly, David! And what happens if we don't use the meaning of a word that everyone understand and accept,

Then someone should rightly ask why we are refusing to use the word.

but instead make up our own definitions, on-the-fly, depending on the situation we are in?

I haven't done that.

Wrong. Words can change their meaning over time. That doesn't give you the right to discard any meaning of any word at any time.

I am refusing to use the word paranormal based on my argument that it is meaningless, not based on the fact that words can change their meaning over time. I am basing my answer to your question "is the definition of supernatural commonly accepted?" on the fact that words can change their meaning over time. Yet again you are not reading my posts (or as I'm beginning to suspect, deliberately misrepresenting what I've written).

Especially when you are in trouble.

I'm fine thanks.

And it is entirely inappropriate to deem a term meaningless, merely because the term shows you are wrong.

I am deeming the term "paranormal" meaningless because it is subjective as to what is paranormal and what is not.

Do you understand, David? You can't deem a term meaningless whenever you are in trouble.

Quite. I'll just stick to what I've been doing all along which is deeming a term meaningless based on reasoning.

No, it isn't. It's about the difference between accepting the meaning of a term, and believing in it.

No, the original point I made, and I have made no other point as far as atheism is concerned, is to refer to the type of atheism that holds no definition of god as a good example of my applied reasoning to the term paranormal.

You think that, because Dawkins doesn't believe in God, he uses a different definition than believers. He does not.

I have never said or implied that. Show me where I have. I keep asking you to show me where I have said certain things but you don't do it. Point out where I have actually said it. You won't be able to.

But we are not discussing non-Dawkins-type atheists.

I was refering to non-Dawkins-type atheists in my original point.

We are discussing Dawkins-type atheists.

If you want to thats fine. I haven't disagreed with anything you've said so far about Dawkins-type atheists.

Do Dawkins use the term "God" in the same manner as believers in "God"?

As I said before, I haven't read his stuff but you have told me that he holds the same definition as the believers.

Educate yourself, David. Do a little digging. Do some work to support your contentions.

What type of atheist Dawkins is has nothing to do with my contentions.

How do you know how much "flap" there would be at SkepticReport?

Educated guess

How are the odds stacked at casinos? Be precise, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine

 

[Zep]

Its refering to their entire database. See Table 6.

So you are now accepting that PEAR's acceding to obtaining NO BETTER THAN CHANCE results actually applies to their entire database?

So your criticism is now that PEAR are too open about their results??!!!

Don't be foolish and evasive. You know precisely what I meant. Unless you now agree that PEAR have, in summary, reported lack of results.

No I don't agree! The drop in effect sizez they observed is a major finding of their program. To not mention it would be ignoring a major aspect of their results.

So you think that if PEAR HAD got good reliable positive results, they would STILL need to find vaccuous and patently ridiculous excuses for them? Strange...

And there's also the fact that they simply could not hide it for very much longer - they HAD been at this particular line of research for more than two decades, soaking up their benefactor's money the meanwhile!

LOL. Imagine the flapping about from SkepticReport if it was found out subsequently that PEAR had not mentioned this drop in effect sizes.

I couldn't say what Skepticreport would say. Ask Claus; it's his baby, not mine.

 

[Flange Desire]

Based on experiments directly investigating "remote viewing" claims, and experiments on other phenomena like "precognition" and "telepathy" which I think are related.

If I could see copious, obvious and compelling evidence for 'remote viewing', 'precognition' and 'telepathy', then I might also believe that 'remote viewing is very likely'.

It seems that most people do not believe that 'remote viewing is very likely', and I suppose that this is because they have not seen copious, obvious and compelling evidence for it.
Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Why can't we (the royal we) see the copious, obvious and compelling evidence for remote viewing?
Are you seeing some evidence that we are not?
(yes, I have looked at all the links provided so far thanks)

 

[Flange Desire]

David: Do you know if the PEAR benefactors and/or the Princeton admin have been pointed at the numerous related threads here at JREF?

It is surprising that they are still at it after all this time and bad publicity.

 

[Beth]

If I could see copious, obvious and compelling evidence for 'remote viewing', 'precognition' and 'telepathy', then I might also believe that 'remote viewing is very likely'.

It seems that most people do not believe that 'remote viewing is very likely',

Actually, I'm not sure that's true, at least not if you include people who believe in telepathy or clairvoyance as well as 'remote viewing' - a relatively modern term that many people my age and older are not familiar with. I saw some survey results reported recently in my local newspaper that indicated that a fairly large percentage do - at least in America.

and I suppose that this is because they have not seen copious, obvious and compelling evidence for it.
Please correct me if I am wrong about this.

Why can't we (the royal we) see the copious, obvious and compelling evidence for remote viewing?
Are you seeing some evidence that we are not?
(yes, I have looked at all the links provided so far thanks)

I haven't looked over all the evidence yet, but my guess would be no, that's not why most people seriously consider the possibility. I think most are people who have either have had experiences or known someone well who did. People have weird experiences some times - there's a couple of recent threads on some interesting ones - and without a good explanation will consider the possibility of ESP more likely than they would otherwise.

You can tell people about all the experiments in the world, but it won't count as much as their own experiences with Aunt Sally who always knew when someone close to her was going to die.

 

[Flange Desire]

Thanks for that Beth, but I really want to wait and see the compelling evidence for remote viewing from David.

 

[Zep]

David: Do you know if the PEAR benefactors and/or the Princeton admin have been pointed at the numerous related threads here at JREF?

It is surprising that they are still at it after all this time and bad publicity.

Although I can't confirm it, it would seem that some of PEAR's financial philanthropic benefactors have fallen by the wayside since this particular report was published. I tried to reconfirm their existence and commitment recently, and at least two of them are no longer found on any Internet search. And one in Europe has gone into some sort of hiatus, or maybe suspended animation - hard to say.

 

[Zygar]

Looking at some of his other papers I have to admit that I was wrong here, it appears that he does understand a lot more than I gave him credit for. Where he learned it without getting some kind of qualification I have no idea.

However, when he claims that psi can be explained by current physics, he is simply talking compete and utter cow poo for the entire paper. The entire paper does not actually have any connection to the real world, even according to him, it is simply a guess at whether causality might be violated, if a certain hypothetical test could be performed. Even though he mentions the word "quantum", there is no quantum physics involved, and in fact no physics of any kind at all, just some vague nonsense based on information and logic.

Thank you. It's so easy for people to be overwhelmed by anything that tries to be physics that many people just believe it unquestioningly. Thus the prevalence of the word "quantum" (which is a meaningless term) in such gobbledygook.

"Rather than attempting to establish a priori probabilities for these more complex descriptor options, the FIDO calculations were carried out using a method similar to binary Method A, which simply divided the sum of the descriptor scores by the total number of descriptors, ignoring any a priori descriptor probabilities."

So in order to find statistical significance, they produced the statistical benchmarks from the results rather than from the design of the experiment? Wrong! This is not how science is done. Science is about accepting the results on their own merit, not about forcing them to work the way you want them to. If the data is too complex to interpret, design a simpler experiment so you can get readable and reproducible results.

Infact, this statement alone is enough to discredit any statistical results they produce. They are not scientists.

Thanks for that Beth, but I really want to wait and see the compelling evidence for remote viewing from David.

Precisely. Even drop the word "compelling". All I see are statistical anomalies well within the range of chance.

 

[Zep]

So in order to find statistical significance, they produced the statistical benchmarks from the results rather than from the design of the experiment? Wrong! This is not how science is done. Science is about accepting the results on their own merit, not about forcing them to work the way you want them to. If the data is too complex to interpret, design a simpler experiment so you can get readable and reproducible results.

Good point! One I had not picked up on myself - thanks! I'll keep a note of that one!

In fact, this statement alone is enough to discredit any statistical results they produce. They are not scientists.

But they SOUND like scientists, and so got benefaction and funding as though they were. Which was the prime subject of the Skepticreport article.

All I see are statistical anomalies well within the range of chance.

...which didn't deter PEAR from trying to pretend otherwise.