PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[CFLarsen]

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

Meaningful to you, at this moment, yes. We know that you can, and will, change your opinion, the moment you are in trouble.

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?

The onus is on you, not me. When you reject the term paranormal, you also say that science is designed to describe everything. That is demonstrably false, and proves that your perception of science, the scientific method and scientific knowledge is wrong.

How on earth have I done that?

By massaging the methods and data, so it shows what you want it to show. The remote viewing data has to be tortured, before PEAR or the other groups can find anything they - and you - think constitutes evidence.

I see it. In the papers.

Has it struck you as odd that this discovery has gone completely unnoticed - and unaccepted - by the scientific community? The world, filled with creduloids, desperate for evience, can't see it. Why is this not compelling in any way, even to them?

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

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.

There is nothing to misunderstand, David. Yet, you insist.

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

I have used exactly the same form of argument that you did when you rejected the term paranormal. You're a hypocrite, David.

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.

Precisely. How do you know it isn't another kind of physical force that brings about the results you so eagerly tout?

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

Not just that, David. It isn't a question of merely explaining why. It's a question of whether we want to be understood by others or not. We cannot impose our interpretation of commonly accepted words on others.

If you want "paranormal" to go, because it is meaningless, then you have to convince those who make the dictionaries. Don't try to convince us.

I haven't done that.

Demonstrably false.

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).

It is meaningless to you, David. Why do you think that you have the sole right to dictate how a debate should proceed?

I'm fine thanks.

Do you really believe that? That you have made a compelling case?

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

Only if you reject the dictionary.

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

"So far", David? Remember that little slip'o'the tongue? What about "strong atheism"?

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.

How can these atheists you speak of reject the existence of something they don't have a definition of? I simply don't understand your argument.

Can you name one of these atheists? Anyone famous?

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.

'ere ya go:

No, I'm just refusing to use the term. An atheist would say the same thing to someone who kept asking questions about god.

Atheist, in general. No reservations. No exceptions.

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

No, you weren't, you liar. Your redefinition came after I brought up Dawkins and proved you wrong.

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

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

Which atheist does not?

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

Dawkins isn't a specific "type" of atheist.

Educated guess

Based on what?

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

Slot machines: 82% to 98%. But in Japan, some slot machines have an outcome of from 90%-200%!

What about the card games? You can beat the casino by guessing the cards, right? If you can guess a card at the right time, you go home with a lot of money.

Just one card is all it takes, David. Why doesn't it happen? We live in a poker-crazed world. With so many psychics out there, why is Las Vegas still standing?

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.

But that's exactly what they did from the very beginning: They started with Zener cards, but ended up with nothing. What have they done after that? They have designed increasingly complex experiments with millions of datapoints, and tried to extract some meaning from it.

They know they haven't found anything. They admit it, but hide it in an avalanche of words.

Parapsychology is a prime example of how not to do science. It is anti-science.

 

[jmercer]

Hi, Latent... there was a thread done about a year ago where a couple of posters supposedly versed in statistics debated over the GCP. As I recall, one poster supposedly demonstrated how the statistics were wrong. Not being a statistician, I certainly couldn't verify or dispute the position.

I can say this; after having read the GCP's verbiage in detail concerning how they conduct their "study" - it's clear to me that they've been cherry-picking their data. Most notably, to justify their findings they sometimes use "windows" of an hour; other times they use windows of several hours and even days. And of course, these windows are all determined in retrospect; by definition when an event occurs, they go back and look for correlating spikes in the data - hence these variable "windows".

Given the utter inconsistency of the methodology in regards to how they measure activity, it's my opinion that any claims they make about statistical probability is - to say the least - suspect.

Dunno if that helps or not, but that's what I have to offer.

 

[davidsmith73]

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

Sorry, I got confused there. The singificant result they mention in the absract refer to the entire database. The results no better than chance that they mention in their abstract refers to the distributive data.

Don't be foolish and evasive. You know precisely what I meant.

I don't think I do. What is wrong with mentioning their drop in effect size more than once? Does this somehow bring doubt upon the other results?

Unless you now agree that PEAR have, in summary, reported lack of results.

No, that is not true as is stated in the abstract.

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?

Thats an issue about their conclusion. You were questioning why they had to report their drop in effect size when they had overall positive results. I think their drop in effect size is a large finding of their results so its just good science reporting to include such a finding in the paper.

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!

How do you know they were hiding this finding?

 

[davidsmith73]

Why can't we (the royal we) see the copious, obvious and compelling evidence for remote viewing?

I'm not sure. Perhaps it is dependent on each of our views on what "obvious" and "compelling" means with regard to the evidence.

 

[davidsmith73]

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.

They used this method for the FIDO and distribtive data. The results of the FIDO data were margunally significant and the distributive data at chance level.

Does what you are saying here apply to their method B which applied to the binary data?

 

[Zep]

David, I don't think you are getting this through your head. So I'll go slowly.

1) The BASE DATA from PEAR, from which all the other information was derived, has been shown to be the product of poorly designed protocols. The quality, and thus the reliability, ranges from very low to unacceptable. The reasons for this are legion, and have been expounded upon at length by far more capable statisticians and protocol designers than I. You want to argue that toss, argue with them - the references are there.

2) Therefore any information derived from this base data is bound to be highly suspect, INCLUDING the initial findings of any "effects". You can't make good cakes from bad eggs.

3) Processing this data to try and get some clarity and "goodness" out of it was bound to fail. Any way it is combined and seived, it is still unacceptable ingredients that are the issue. The results will always be suspect, and most likely will be spurious. Pointing to this effect and that effect is to deny the situation - head in the clouds.

4) This does NOT say that there is no evidence for RV, or any similar phenomenon. All it says is that this 25 years of PEAR research is clearly insufficient to prove anything, one way or another.

5) PEAR clearly have other issues AS WELL AS the paranormal research to consider. Being a privately funded group, they need to show "results" in order to justify their expenditure and even ongoing existence. This is not unique to PEAR, of course.

6) Given the poor quality of their research, the lack of verifiable or even visible results, and the shoddy attempt to hide same under meaningless "new age" waffle, it seems rather clear they chose to publish this paper purely as an obfuscation to their patrons in an attempt to retain ongoing support and funding. Science never actually entered into it. If it did, they should be handing back their degrees - work of such demonstrably poor quality is probably unacceptable in most US universities with any decent research pedigree.

 

[Beth]

David, I don't think you are getting this through your head. So I'll go slowly.

The impression I get, David can correct me if I'm wrong, is that he doesn't disagree with you on those points. He stated at the beginning that he recognized the PEAR study has significant problems regarding how the data was collected. He's been arguing that the method of analysis used on the data did not create artifactual findings - that the analysis approach was sound - not that the PEAR paper provides suitable evidence for RV.

 

[davidsmith73]

Meaningful to you, at this moment, yes. We know that you can, and will, change your opinion, the moment you are in trouble.

I haven't changed my opinion at all.

The onus is on you, not me. When you reject the term paranormal, you also say that science is designed to describe everything. That is demonstrably false, and proves that your perception of science, the scientific method and scientific knowledge is wrong.

You have no reasoned argument here. I'm rejecting the term parnormal based on my argument that it is meaningless because the meaning of term is not based on objective criteria. What is deemed paranormal is based on subjective opinion. What has this got to do with my perception of science?

By massaging the methods and data, so it shows what you want it to show.

What the data reports to show is what the data reports to show! You call it massaging because you don't like the fact that SkepticReport got it wrong.

Has it struck you as odd that this discovery has gone completely unnoticed - and unaccepted - by the scientific community?

Yes.

There is nothing to misunderstand, David. Yet, you insist.

Claus, do you agree or disagree that they reported an overall positive and significant result. If you disagree, please show me precisely how and where the paper does not show this.

I have used exactly the same form of argument that you did when you rejected the term paranormal. You're a hypocrite, David.

No you haven't. You have yet to address this part of my argument:

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.

Precisely. How do you know it isn't another kind of physical force that brings about the results you so eagerly tout?

Which results I so eagerly tout? What are you talking about?

Not just that, David. It isn't a question of merely explaining why. It's a question of whether we want to be understood by others or not.

And I have explained my reasons for rejecting the word "paranormal". That is clearly wanting you to understand me. You just have sour grapes because my view doesn't fit in with yours.

We cannot impose our interpretation of commonly accepted words on others.

Which is precisely what you keep attempting to do with me by continuing to insist I use the term paranormal to express what I think about remote viewing.

If you want "paranormal" to go, because it is meaningless, then you have to convince those who make the dictionaries. Don't try to convince us.

I am not having a discussion with the dictionary makers, I'm having a discussion (if you could call it that judging by the state its got to!) with you Claus. So I must convince you that it is meaningless to this discussion. Which it is.

Demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it then!

It is meaningless to you, David. Why do you think that you have the sole right to dictate how a debate should proceed?

If you can provide a counter argument that will convince me that the term paranormal is meaningful then I'll proceed.

Only if you reject the dictionary.

Please tell me how rejecting the term "paranormal", based on the argument that the term is defined by subjective opinion as to what is paranormal and what is not, is rejecting the dictionary.

How can these atheists you speak of reject the existence of something they don't have a definition of?

I'm getting tired of this. Just read this:

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

Atheist, in general. No reservations. No exceptions.

A weak atheist is an atheist. I didn't say all atheists must respond that way. Granted, I should have said "an atheist could" rather than "would", which would have clarified. I really assumed that you would know I was talking about weak atheism. But I clarified in subsequent posts, so there's no problem here.

No, you weren't, you liar. Your redefinition came after I brought up Dawkins and proved you wrong.

It wasn't a redefinition. It was clarification. I admit I should have been clearer in my initial statement. I certainly wasn't lying.

Which atheist does not?

Me. Why does it matter anyway? A reasoned argument is not good enough?

Dawkins isn't a specific "type" of atheist.

I would say he's definately a strong atheist.

Based on what?

Your behaviour on this forum.

Slot machines: 82% to 98%. But in Japan, some slot machines have an outcome of from 90%-200%!

And? The casinos in Japan would also not notice any difference in their profits if the PK effect is small. The real payout percentage for some machines might be 90.5% - 200.5% instead of 90%-200%. This would make little difference to their profit and loss if such an effect were present. It wouldn't mean the end of Japanese casinos.

What about the card games? You can beat the casino by guessing the cards, right? If you can guess a card at the right time, you go home with a lot of money.

You could have to consistently guess right at a high rate to affect their profit and loss. If an ESP effect were only small, this would most likely not happen.

They know they haven't found anything. They admit it, but hide it in an avalanche of words.

PEAR reported a highly significant positive overall result. They do not admit they found nothing.

 

[CFLarsen]

I haven't changed my opinion at all.

Liar.

You have no reasoned argument here. I'm rejecting the term parnormal based on my argument that it is meaningless because the meaning of term is not based on objective criteria. What is deemed paranormal is based on subjective opinion. What has this got to do with my perception of science?

Rubbish. Take a look at Webster:

paranormal: not scientifically explainable

How is that subjective? You can't have objectivity outside of science?

What the data reports to show is what the data reports to show! You call it massaging because you don't like the fact that SkepticReport got it wrong.

No, I call it massaging because I hesitate - just - to call it fraud. David, when you have to do that much to the data as PEAR and the others do, then you don't have very strong evidence. Why all this jumping about from these people? Why all these strained attempts of finding something, anything? Why not do a simple experiment and let independent researchers replicate it?

Because there isn't anything there.

Yes.

And....? Why is this?

Claus, do you agree or disagree that they reported an overall positive and significant result. If you disagree, please show me precisely how and where the paper does not show this.

I'm done playing this idiotic game with you, David. If you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead. But don't come whining when others won't play by your rules.

Which results I so eagerly tout? What are you talking about?

More games from you.

And I have explained my reasons for rejecting the word "paranormal". That is clearly wanting you to understand me. You just have sour grapes because my view doesn't fit in with yours.

Yes, I am devastated that you harbor paranormal beliefs....my whole world is threatened because others are so brave to believe in the paranormal....

Which is precisely what you keep attempting to do with me by continuing to insist I use the term paranormal to express what I think about remote viewing.

Not at all. I am trying to get you to use commonly accepted words, so we can debate. Not talk past each other.

We have the weight of the dictionary behind us. You have the weight of your opinion. Why should we adhere to your whims?

I am not having a discussion with the dictionary makers, I'm having a discussion (if you could call it that judging by the state its got to!) with you Claus. So I must convince you that it is meaningless to this discussion. Which it is.

You are not doing a good job.

Then demonstrate it then!

Already done.

If you can provide a counter argument that will convince me that the term paranormal is meaningful then I'll proceed.

Answer the question: Why do you think that you have the sole right to dictate how a debate should proceed?

Please tell me how rejecting the term "paranormal", based on the argument that the term is defined by subjective opinion as to what is paranormal and what is not, is rejecting the dictionary.

You think a word stands on its own? That words are separate entities, with no meaningful connection with each other?

I'm getting tired of this. Just read this:

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

This has nothing to do with how people use the definition of God. This is only about what they believe in.

Atheists (of any kind) don't deny the definition of God. Do you understand this?

A weak atheist is an atheist. I didn't say all atheists must respond that way. Granted, I should have said "an atheist could" rather than "would", which would have clarified. I really assumed that you would know I was talking about weak atheism. But I clarified in subsequent posts, so there's no problem here.

Yeah, you "clarified"....

It wasn't a redefinition. It was clarification. I admit I should have been clearer in my initial statement. I certainly wasn't lying.

Sure....

Me. Why does it matter anyway? A reasoned argument is not good enough?

No, because you don't debate honestly or reasoned. You want to make up your own rules which you reserve the right to change at any given moment.

I would say he's definately a strong atheist.

Based on what? You know nothing of his writings, nothing of his arguments. Educate yourself, David.

Your behaviour on this forum.

Where have I suppressed evidence on this forum?

And? The casinos in Japan would also not notice any difference in their profits if the PK effect is small. The real payout percentage for some machines might be 90.5% - 200.5% instead of 90%-200%. This would make little difference to their profit and loss if such an effect were present. It wouldn't mean the end of Japanese casinos.

Yes, it would: Because if there are a lot of psychics, it adds up very quickly. One psychic is just a little better than chance, reducing the profits just a little bit? Two psychics are even better. If you have 1000 psychics, you're going to end up with no casino real fast.

Again: If a casino has a thousand psychics, playing the same game, the casino loses money.

Do you understand? Is this getting through to you, David?

You could have to consistently guess right at a high rate to affect their profit and loss. If an ESP effect were only small, this would most likely not happen.

No, you would not have to be consistent. All you needed to do was, over time, be just a little bit better than odds. And with more psychics, the money is lost even faster.

PEAR reported a highly significant positive overall result. They do not admit they found nothing.

Live in your fantasy world, David.

 

[davidsmith73]

The impression I get, David can correct me if I'm wrong, is that he doesn't disagree with you on those points. He stated at the beginning that he recognized the PEAR study has significant problems regarding how the data was collected. He's been arguing that the method of analysis used on the data did not create artifactual findings - that the analysis approach was sound - not that the PEAR paper provides suitable evidence for RV.

Thanks Beth, this is correct.

Also, my motivation for starting this thread is to prove a point - always be sceptical of the "sceptics".

 

[davidsmith73]

Liar.

I'm just going to ignore these unfounded accusations from now on. Whenever you reply like this without a reasoned argument to back it up, i'll just assume you don't have one.

Rubbish. Take a look at Webster:

paranormal: not scientifically explainable

How is that subjective?

Because there is no objective way to ascertain whether something is sceintifically unexplainable before it is explained. Its only when we finally explain it that we are able to say "oh yes, it is explainable after all". Hence, this gives people the freedom to cherry pick what they want to include as unexplainable by science, and hence label as paranormal.

No, I call it massaging because I hesitate - just - to call it fraud. David, when you have to do that much to the data as PEAR and the others do, then you don't have very strong evidence.

I'm doing nothing to the data. I'm just correcting the mistakes of SkepticReport.

And....? Why is this?

I don't rightly know. I have my personal opinion as to why, but I don't have proof. Would you like to hear my opinion on it?

I'm done playing this idiotic game with you, David. If you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead. But don't come whining when others won't play by your rules.

Claus, do you agree or disagree that they reported an overall positive and significant result? If you disagree, please show me precisely how and where the paper does not show this.

If you don't answer this for a second time, I'll assume you can't. It wouldn't do you harm to admit you are wrong.

Not at all. I am trying to get you to use commonly accepted words, so we can debate. Not talk past each other.

But I have explained why your word "paranormal" is meaningless to this debate. There is no way to tell if remote viewing (if you accept the findings of the papers I linked) is unexplainable by science. Its only when it is explained that you can say it is explainable.

What meaning does it serve this debate to label remote viewing as "paranormal"?

Answer the question: Why do you think that you have the sole right to dictate how a debate should proceed?

I don't have the sole right. You can challenge me on the meaning of a term if you like. As long as its based on sound argument. So just provide a counter argument as to why you think the term paranormal is meaningful to this debate.

This has nothing to do with how people use the definition of God. This is only about what they believe in.

Atheists (of any kind) don't deny the definition of God. Do you understand this?

I disagree. You can be a weak atheist and deny that the definition of god has any meaning. This wouldn't be strong atheism because to deny the existence of something, you have to have a coherent idea of what it is you are denying.

Based on what? You know nothing of his writings, nothing of his arguments. Educate yourself, David.

I've read enough between our posts to come to the conclusion he is a strong atheist. What do you think he is?

Where have I suppressed evidence on this forum?

Nowhere. I observe your constant verbal flapping however.

Yes, it would: Because if there are a lot of psychics, it adds up very quickly. One psychic is just a little better than chance, reducing the profits just a little bit? Two psychics are even better. If you have 1000 psychics, you're going to end up with no casino real fast.

No, you would not have to be consistent. All you needed to do was, over time, be just a little bit better than odds. And with more psychics, the money is lost even faster.

Where in the literature is there evidence that psi effect sizes are dependent on the number of psychics? For example, if, for a moment, we take the evidence of the GCP to be reliable, then surely thier effect sizes should be far bigger then experiments involving just one person. But they don't appear to be. So we don't know that the effect is additive. But we do have an indication that the effect is small.

Live in your fantasy world, David.

Can't reply then Claus. Be a man and admit your mistakes finally.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm just going to ignore these unfounded accusations from now on. Whenever you reply like this without a reasoned argument to back it up, i'll just assume you don't have one.

It would be better and more productive if you started debating honestly.

Because there is no objective way to ascertain whether something is sceintifically unexplainable before it is explained. Its only when we finally explain it that we are able to say "oh yes, it is explainable after all". Hence, this gives people the freedom to cherry pick what they want to include as unexplainable by science, and hence label as paranormal.

Is math science?

I'm doing nothing to the data. I'm just correcting the mistakes of SkepticReport.

I'm speaking figuratively. There has to be done so much to the data, before they can squeeze anything out of it.

I don't rightly know. I have my personal opinion as to why, but I don't have proof. Would you like to hear my opinion on it?

That's why I ask.

But I have explained why your word "paranormal" is meaningless to this debate. There is no way to tell if remote viewing (if you accept the findings of the papers I linked) is unexplainable by science. Its only when it is explained that you can say it is explainable.

What meaning does it serve this debate to label remote viewing as "paranormal"?

Because remote viewing is paranormal. It's that simple.

Take how you remote view: You don't remote view Zener cards and get an objective result. You remote view this way:

"I see a large object.....it's tall...thin....a tree, maybe a pole...there's water nearby..."

How is finding a positive result not subjective?

I don't have the sole right. You can challenge me on the meaning of a term if you like. As long as its based on sound argument. So just provide a counter argument as to why you think the term paranormal is meaningful to this debate.

But you have reserved the right to dismiss any term, if you deem it "meaningless". Strangely enough, you will do this the moment you are in trouble.

If I don't accept your explanation, then what? Then, you still insist that you are right, and we should use your new definitions.

How is that not you dictating how we can debate?

I disagree. You can be a weak atheist and deny that the definition of god has any meaning. This wouldn't be strong atheism because to deny the existence of something, you have to have a coherent idea of what it is you are denying.

But that's not what weak atheists do, either implicit or explicit ones:

If you are an implicit atheist, you haven't consciously rejected theistic beliefs - ergo, you have to have accepted the definition of god.

If you are an explicit atheist, you consciously reject the the belief in deities - ergo, you have to have accepted the definition of god, in order to reject it.

Source

You are simply making this up as you go, David.

I've read enough between our posts to come to the conclusion he is a strong atheist. What do you think he is?

The onus is not on me. Have you done a modicum of studying Dawkins on your own after I brought him up?

Nowhere.

Thank you.

I observe your constant verbal flapping however.

And that makes you think I will suppress evidence?

Where in the literature is there evidence that psi effect sizes are dependent on the number of psychics? For example, if, for a moment, we take the evidence of the GCP to be reliable, then surely thier effect sizes should be far bigger then experiments involving just one person. But they don't appear to be. So we don't know that the effect is additive. But we do have an indication that the effect is small.

You misunderstand: Two psychics don't get twice the effect. It's a question of accumulated people with psychic abilities, not a question of accumulated psychic abilities.

Let's say - for the sake of argument - that psychics each are 0.1% better than chance. If one psychic gambles, he will win 0.1% more than the casino counts on. So, he gambles a lot, and walks away with $1000.

With me so far?

Now, 1000 psychics gamble. How much money will the casino lose?

Can't reply then Claus. Be a man and admit your mistakes finally.

A high significant result. Fantastic discovery. Yet, thundering silence. Go figure.

 

[Yahzi]

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.

A comment like this betrays a staggering unfamiliarity with how things work.

The odds you describe as heavily stacked in the favour of the casinos are regulated by law. The casinos are legally permitted to rake a certain amount, and no more.

Now ask yourself: if the daily rake comes up short a few percent, do the people who run the casinos shrug it off as unimportant?

Or do they immediately suspect cheating, and investigate?

One more question: has any casino anywhere, ever, at any time, made it a policy that self-proclaimed psychics are not allowed to play?

Casinos ban cheaters all the time. They prohibit computers in your shoes, pockets, or glasses. They get upset at idiot-savants (like Rainman) who can do card-counting in their heads, and eventually ban them from the tables. But by gosh golly gee, if you are the most famous well-tested psychic in the world, they will welcome you with open arms and a smile on their face as wide as the Grand Canyon.

If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know, then you need to open your eyes.

Las Vegas has spent 50 billion dollars over 50 years to test 50 million people for psychic powers. And they have come up with exactly the statistical payout physics predicts. If anybody is in a position to detect psychic powers, it is the people who have to pay. There are no telekentics affecting the roulette wheels or slot machines; no precogs guessing the kino boards or black-jack shoe; no telepaths reading other people's cards at poker.

The World Poker Tour is big business now; it's on TV, they make millions, thousands of people compete. They talk strategy for hours of expensive air-time; there are thousands of books on how to guess what other players are holding, hundreds of systems of "tells." How many books are there on how to read somebody's mind to see their cards? And how well do those books sell?

The evidence for psi evaporates the instance you actually look at any real-world endeavor. More to the point, the belief in psi evaporates as soon as anyone wants to actually accomplish something.

You have looked at Las Vegas, the greatest, longest-running experiment in psi ever dreamed of, and simply ignored it because it did not produce the answers you wanted.

 

[Yahzi]

And? The casinos in Japan would also not notice any difference in their profits if the PK effect is small. The real payout percentage for some machines might be 90.5% - 200.5% instead of 90%-200%. This would make little difference to their profit and loss if such an effect were present. It wouldn't mean the end of Japanese casinos.

That .5% you are talking about represents millions of dollars.

If you think Japense casino owners don't notice, or don't care, that millions of dollars are unaccountable for, then your naivete is simply undefeatable.

[Edit: 200% payout? For a slot machine? You don't actually know what "payout" means, do you...]

You could have to consistently guess right at a high rate to affect their profit and loss. If an ESP effect were only small, this would most likely not happen.

In other words, if the ESP rate is too small to detect, it might still exist.

What makes you think any privately funded organization (like PEAR) could possibly compete with the resources of the gambling industry?

 

[Yahzi]

Can't reply then Claus. Be a man and admit your mistakes finally.

I am sorry to inform you that you've been wasting your time. Claus is not actually a skeptic; he merely plays on TV.

Like all woos, Claus reinterprets reality to avoid having to admit any mistakes of any kind, even the most trivial and unimportant. For an example of this, refer to the thread in my sig line.

If Claus is the skeptic you want us to be skeptical of, well, we already know that, and Claus is not actually a skeptic anyway. Skeptics endorse a process which places objective fact at the root of all inquiry. Claus does not do this.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am sorry to inform you that you've been wasting your time. Claus is not actually a skeptic; he merely plays on TV.

Like all woos, Claus reinterprets reality to avoid having to admit any mistakes of any kind, even the most trivial and unimportant. For an example of this, refer to the thread in my sig line.

If Claus is the skeptic you want us to be skeptical of, well, we already know that, and Claus is not actually a skeptic anyway. Skeptics endorse a process which places objective fact at the root of all inquiry. Claus does not do this.

You know, bragging about you not respecting other people's privacy is hardly a fertile way, if you want to appear to have integrity.

 

[fls]

For an example of this, refer to the thread in my sig line.

That is an impressive display of stamina.

Linda

 

[Zep]

The impression I get, David can correct me if I'm wrong, is that he doesn't disagree with you on those points. He stated at the beginning that he recognized the PEAR study has significant problems regarding how the data was collected. He's been arguing that the method of analysis used on the data did not create artifactual findings - that the analysis approach was sound - not that the PEAR paper provides suitable evidence for RV.

Unfortunately, you can't draw that conclusion from the analysis done by PEAR. They are saying, and David is trying to reinforce this, that because they got "results" at the start, and their reduction analysis still showed "results" on the way through, that the analysis was therefore valid. Even if the data was not.

The analogy (somehow I have to do it this way because we can't seem to progress using the actual facts of the case) is like using rotten eggs to make a cake. Sure it stinks at the start, and it stinks at the end, but does that say the cake-making process was good? No, I think not.

 

[Yahzi]

That is an impressive display of stamina.

I believe he is still holding his breath.

It is a salutory lesson, however. People can ignore the most basic facts, mortgage their entire personality, just to avoid admitting they are capable of error.

If a person as educated in the methods of rationalism as Claus is capable of this, why would we expect different from anyone else?

Skepticism is a process, not a conclusion.

 

[Flange Desire]

I asked -
Why can't we (the royal we) see the copious, obvious and compelling evidence for remote viewing?

I'm not sure. Perhaps it is dependent on each of our views on what "obvious" and "compelling" means with regard to the evidence.

You find the evidence supporting remote viewing sufficient for you to believe that it is 'very likely'.

Yet most do not take this view.

I propose that this is because there is no compelling evidence for it.
You propose that it is more a question of how compelling the evidence is.

You have pointed us at a few studies that appear (to me) to be far from compelling. It is possible that you are referring to some other unsighted studies, but I will assume for now that you are not (because surely they would be well known in the public domain otherwise).

Can you explain why the evidence is compelling to you?

And how does this weigh up in the face of the huge body of evidence that indicates that remote viewing is not real?

Sorry to labour the point but there seems to be some cognitive disssonance here.