PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[CFLarsen]

I hope that davidsmith73 is within reach. He can have his beliefs for all I care, he just has to face the fact that PEAR is not the answer to his dreams. Maybe the next study. Or the next.

His problem is that PEAR is the best he has.

 

[steenkh]

His problem is that PEAR is the best he has.

He will have to donate money to further research in the area.

 

[davidsmith73]

The term 'paranormal' is hardly meaningless in this context.

It is for me. You can use your own definition of the term if you want but if someone asks me a direct question relating to the term, I can only ask for their definition of it before I answer. Claus gave his definition, which was actually a definition of "supernatural". Well, I tried...

It is a fact that the laws of physics will have to be seriously adjusted if any of this would be true. Even the theory of evolution would have to be revised to explain why no living creature has taken evolutionary advantage of remote viewing.

You assume that the laws of physics will have to be seriously adjusted. It may seem that way, but it 'aint necessarily so!

I believe, like Claus, that despite your woolen words, this stuff is something that you believe in. You believe that you evidence for your beliefs, although in this case rather tenuous, and you are entitled to hold that belief.

I stated my opinion an beliefs on "this stuff" quite clearly on post 40. Perhaps you and Claus should go back and read the thread properly.

On this board you will be hard pressed to get support for the belief that flawed data can somehow be treated statistically to become good data.

I am not saying that at all.

 

[davidsmith73]

And I've already told you that it doesn't make a whit of difference what words you want to ignore.

Great! As I was saying, the term is meaningless, hence ignoring it will not make any difference to the arguments presented on this thread. Glad you agree with me.

I was wrong? It was "No"?

May I remind you of your earlier posts, when I asked you that they can, in fact, obtain information by remote viewing:

"Very difficult to say from the PEAR data because of the methodological problems. Other labs have got positive results however"

This was an answer to a question about the PEAR results. No contradiction there. Why do keep trying to misrepresent my view?

"I was refering to their lack of randomisation and lack of safeguards for fraud. Unfortunately, because of this the PEAR data cannot be regarded as evidence for remote viewing, IMO. Having said that, on the issue of randomisation of targets, both the data for volitional and instructed trials got similar positive results. We would expect the volition trials to get far higher scores if personal bias were at play, which is interesting. "

Again there is no contradiction here. The data for volitional and instructed trials got similar positive results. Thats a statement of fact. I still regard these results as invalid due to the methodolgical problems discussed in the Hansen paper. I was making a point about the issue of volitional vs instructed trials.

You are extremely careful with your wording, but this is as close as it gets to you being clear:

You do argue that there are positive results by remote viewing.

Yes. The other links I gave. I think those papers are good evidence.

That means that you believe that paranormal phenomena are real.

No. It means I think remote viewing is very likely. More replications are needed. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

If I don't understand, it is certainly because of your vague and evasive replies. I - and others - have been trying to get you to state clearly what it is you mean. And believe. You have a hard time doing just that. Don't blame us for your unwillingness to speak clearly.

No Claus, you have been trying to change the meaning of my statements to agree with your preconceived notions of the "paranormal". Please stop.

 

[CFLarsen]

Great! As I was saying, the term is meaningless, hence ignoring it will not make any difference to the arguments presented on this thread. Glad you agree with me.

You are missing the point entirely. The point is not that we agree - because we don't. The point is that it doesn't make any difference what words you want to use, what you point to evidence of is clearly paranormal.

This was an answer to a question about the PEAR results. No contradiction there. Why do keep trying to misrepresent my view?

I am not. That's why I highlighted your reference to the other labs. Claiming otherwise is misrepresenting what I did.

Again there is no contradiction here. The data for volitional and instructed trials got similar positive results. Thats a statement of fact. I still regard these results as invalid due to the methodolgical problems discussed in the Hansen paper. I was making a point about the issue of volitional vs instructed trials.

There you go: You believe that PEAR has gotten information by remote viewing. You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

Yes. The other links I gave. I think those papers are good evidence.

There you go: You believe that others have gotten information by remote viewing. You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

No. It means I think remote viewing is very likely. More replications are needed. Again, stop putting words in my mouth.

Again, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am going with what you say. You believe that people can get information by remote viewing. You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

No Claus, you have been trying to change the meaning of my statements to agree with your preconceived notions of the "paranormal". Please stop.

Nope. I have been trying to get you to clearly state your beliefs concerning the existence of paranormal phenomena. It is not my problem that you are deliberately trying to be as evasive and obfuscating as possible.

You are the one who wants to dismiss the commonly accepted definition of what "paranormal" is. You are the one trying to change the meaning of commonly understood words.

Why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal?

 

[davidsmith73]

Sorry, but you haven't understood, or I really should have made it simpler for you. My analogy was chosen to represent PEAR's actual methodology and data collection processes in an understandable way.

Sorry, but I don't think your analogy is valid. How about we stick with the actual methodology rather than some analogy?

Each data point (or descriptor, as you call it) is the equivalent of taking a noise measurement from your analogous radio speaker at a single point in time. So over a period of time, you will have many points of data generated, equivalent to multiple data points. However they will all be binary, and thus all useless, as described in posts above.

You have no means of distinguishing each noise data point. It the equivalent of one descriptor question asked again and again. Furthermore, there is still no analogous target.

Can we just get back to the actual method of PEAR? I've read your extended analogy and to be frank its getting further and further from what actually went on.

Instead, you seem to be trying to nitpick one tiny point on the outer rim of the galaxy of this whole exercise.

Its not a small point. Its an argument against quite a substantial portion of the article in SkepticReport.

And yet they reported they got nothing at the end. I quoted this above from the body of their report, and it's in the abstract of their own report. Perhaps you will tell us what we who have read the report many times have missed?

You have missed the fact that your quote referred to the distributive data set, not the whole results "at the end".

No. For the umpteenth time. Biniarising the data CHANGES the results, so it WILL produce artificial positives OR negatives.

I'm getting the impression that you somehow think it amazing that a matrix of data that is damn near all zeroes initially somehow doesn't change a lot when it is binarised...to all zeroes.

The data collected using the distributed descriptor method does not represent zeros because the data has not been analysed yet!

You can specifically see whether their analysis methods were introducing artifact and thus responsible for the positive results.

They roughly did this:

1) they collected their data from the participants using the distributed method (10 possible answers to each question).

2) Each answer was then treated as a ternary or binary score. This will retain any bias present if the bias is correlated to the actual target. Binary scores are likely to retain the bias more often.

3) They then analysed the distributed, ternary and binary data.

If the results of the previous experiments using binary analysis were due to some kind of artifact then you would expect the same positive result for the binary data. But this did not happen. Please show me exactly where I have gone wrong!

 

[davidsmith73]

You are missing the point entirely. The point is not that we agree - because we don't. The point is that it doesn't make any difference what words you want to use, what you point to evidence of is clearly paranormal.

Only by your definition of paranormal. I don't use this word. I can go on correcting your mistakes for as long as it takes for you to stop.

I am not. That's why I highlighted your reference to the other labs. Claiming otherwise is misrepresenting what I did.

No. You asked me:

Has PEAR detected something that is paranormal? That they can, in fact, obtain information by remote viewing?

There you go: You believe that PEAR has gotten information by remote viewing.

No. I made an observation on the similarity of the reported results. I then commented that the reported results are not valid due to methodological errors. You assume much Claus.

You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't use the term paranormal.

There you go: You believe that others have gotten information by remote viewing.

Yes, I think the other papers are valid.

You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't use the term paranormal.

Again, I am not putting words in your mouth. I am going with what you say.

No. You keep changing and rephrasing what I say.

You believe that people can get information by remote viewing.

I think that remote viewing is likely. And of course, this statement depends on my definition of remote viewing, which I touched upon before.

You believe in the existence of a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't use the term paranormal.

Nope. I have been trying to get you to clearly state your beliefs concerning the existence of paranormal phenomena.

I don't use the term paranormal.

It is not my problem that you are deliberately trying to be as evasive and obfuscating as possible.

Repeating that I don't use the term paranormal 5 times is pretty clear i would have thought.

You are the one who wants to dismiss the commonly accepted definition of what "paranormal" is.

Damn right.

You are the one trying to change the meaning of commonly understood words.

No. I am not changing the meaning of the term. I'm just not using it thanks.

Why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal?

Why do you think this?

 

[CFLarsen]

Only by your definition of paranormal. I don't use this word. I can go on correcting your mistakes for as long as it takes for you to stop.

This is where you reveal your dishonesty. You are good at hiding it, but it slips through from time to time.

You know very well that this is not a case of my definition against yours. You know that it is a question of you dismissing the commonly accepted definition of paranormal.

No. You asked me:

Has PEAR detected something that is paranormal? That they can, in fact, obtain information by remote viewing?

And I highlighted the other part where you said there was evidence of remote viewing. Do you deny this, yes or no?

No. I made an observation on the similarity of the reported results. I then commented that the reported results are not valid due to methodological errors. You assume much Claus.

No, I go with what you say: You clearly said that there are at least some instances of remote viewing. That means you believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

I don't use the term paranormal.

That is entirely irrelevant to the nature of what you believe exists.

Yes, I think the other papers are valid.

What does that mean, "valid"? Since you keep rewriting the dictionary, please explain.

No. You keep changing and rephrasing what I say.

That is demonstrably false.

I think that remote viewing is likely. And of course, this statement depends on my definition of remote viewing, which I touched upon before.

You don't just think it is likely, you have pointed to instances where it has happened.

Repeating that I don't use the term paranormal 5 times is pretty clear i would have thought.

We know. If I say "I don't use the term gravity", does that mean that gravity doesn't exist? Do you think you can just rewrite the dictionary? Why are you deliberately obfuscating the debate?

Damn right.

You really don't see a problem with this? Do we have to insist on you providing us with a full list of those words you don't agree with the dictionary version of?

No. I am not changing the meaning of the term. I'm just not using it thanks.

Rubbish. By refusing to acknowledge that what you believe in is paranormal, you are changing the meaning of the term.

Why do you think this?

Answer the question: Why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal?

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is a fact that the laws of physics will have to be seriously adjusted if any of this would be true.

You're like the type of person who, before Einstein's discoveries, said

'It is a fact that the Newtonian laws of physics will have to be seriously adjusted if any of this would be true.'

The "laws" are always being refined and new ones discovered. So that fact upsets you. OK. But that is reality.

Now, the question of evidence is a different story. I'm just commenting on your whining about possible change.

 

[Zep]

Sorry, but I don't think your analogy is valid. How about we stick with the actual methodology rather than some analogy?

We did, PEAR did, they reported they got nothing. So I fail to see why are you arguing with me about it?

You have no means of distinguishing each noise data point. It the equivalent of one descriptor question asked again and again. Furthermore, there is still no analogous target.

Bingo. So can you not see that this is precisely what PEAR did with their efforts?

Btw, it's an ANALOGY, by way of description. If it were a precise representation of the original work, it would BE the original work.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're like the type of person who, before Einstein's discoveries, said

'It is a fact that the Newtonian laws of physics will have to be seriously adjusted if any of this would be true.'

The "laws" are always being refined and new ones discovered. So that fact upsets you. OK. But that is reality.

Now, the question of evidence is a different story. I'm just commenting on your whining about possible change.

Where is Steen discarding the possibility that ""laws" are always being refined and new ones discovered"?

 

[davidsmith73]

This is where you reveal your dishonesty. You are good at hiding it, but it slips through from time to time.

You know very well that this is not a case of my definition against yours. You know that it is a question of you dismissing the commonly accepted definition of paranormal.

I am not being dishonest, and I did not mention anything about my definition of the term "paranormal" because I don't have one. I am simply refusing to use your definition of the word "paranormal", or use any other definition because using the term contributes nothing to this debate. I've already explained why the term is scientifically meaningless, yet you continue to use the term.

And I highlighted the other part where you said there was evidence of remote viewing. Do you deny this, yes or no?

Ok Claus, I am going to trace what we actually said,

First off, you asked this question (post 74):

"Has PEAR obtained information by remote viewing? Yes or no?"

I answered (post 76):

"I was refering to their lack of randomisation and lack of safeguards for fraud. Unfortunately, because of this the PEAR data cannot be regarded as evidence for remote viewing, IMO."

and later (post 78):

"If I could summarise a bit clearer, PEAR reported positive results and a decline in effect, which was not due to their analysis method. However, due to issues of randomisation, lack of fraud prevention and doubts over the sizes of their reported p-values (from the Hansen et all paper), their data cannot be regarded as evidence of remote viewing."


Thats a clear no.

Later on, for some reason, you asked the same question (last attempt post 87):

"David,

So, PEAR has obtained information by remote viewing in at least some cases? Yes or no.

Why do you keep avoiding this perfectly simple question?"

To which I replied:

"I've already answered this." (refer to posts 76 and 78)

But then you followed with (post 92):

"I'll take that as a "Yes", then.

You do believe in paranormal phenomena, then."

The first statement above is incorrect. My answer was clearly no, not yes. The second statement is your own faulty conclusion to your previous faulty statement.

I reply saying you are wrong on this (post 94).

Now, lets remember that the question you posed was specifically about the PEAR work.

As a reply, you refer to previous statements of mine that refer to other labs results, when the original question was a direct question about the PEAR work! (see your reply, post 96). Also, in post 96, you refer to a statement of mine in which I comment on a comparison between the results of the PEAR volitional vs instructed trials both getting positive results. Considering the fact that I made two previous posts that specifically stated my view that I do not regard the PEAR data as evidence for remote viewing, this is simple to interpret.

No, I go with what you say: You clearly said that there are at least some instances of remote viewing. That means you believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

You're doing it again Claus. My statement referred to the reported results of PEAR. I already said the PEAR work cannot be regarded as evidence, but other work can IMO.

That is entirely irrelevant to the nature of what you believe exists.

Exactly, so stop using the silly term and ask me a meaningful question.

What does that mean, "valid"? Since you keep rewriting the dictionary, please explain.

acceptable scientific methodology and standards.

That is demonstrably false.

No. See above. I notice that you do not refer to previous statements you make because if you do it would be clear to all what you are doing.

You don't just think it is likely, you have pointed to instances where it has happened.

No, I point to instances where we can say with a certain likelyhood that it has happened. Do you know what scientific inference is?

We know. If I say "I don't use the term gravity", does that mean that gravity doesn't exist?

Gravity has a meaningful definition. "Paranormal" does not.

Do you think you can just rewrite the dictionary?

I can choose not to use a term that has no scientific meaning and offers nothing to this debate.

You really don't see a problem with this?

No

Do we have to insist on you providing us with a full list of those words you don't agree with the dictionary version of?

No, I'll tell you if others turn up in the course of your discussion. There's only "parnormal" that I can think of just now.

Rubbish. By refusing to acknowledge that what you believe in is paranormal, you are changing the meaning of the term.

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

Answer the question: Why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal?

You assume that I am a "believer in the paranormal". Incorrect.

 

[davidsmith73]

We did, PEAR did, they reported they got nothing.

No they didn't. They reported that they got overall siginifcant results. You keep referring to the bit where they said they got no results for the distributive trials. This is true, but the distributive and FIDO trials were only part of the whole program. To focus just on these negative results would be data selection.

Bingo. So can you not see that this is precisely what PEAR did with their efforts?

Not at all. They clearly had means to distinguish their data points by means of different descriptor questions which were compared with the probability of their occurance in the range of targets. You are not making any argument anymore. Also, you have still not addressed my question. I'll try again:

If the drop in results were due to the analysis method then why didn't the distributive data give positive results when analysed as binary?

Zep, you have provided no answer to this question as yet.

Btw, it's an ANALOGY, by way of description. If it were a precise representation of the original work, it would BE the original work.

I know. Analogies are always going to fall short of the real thing. So lets just drop the analogy and concentrate on the real thing.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not being dishonest, and I did not mention anything about my definition of the term "paranormal" because I don't have one. I am simply refusing to use your definition of the word "paranormal", or use any other definition because using the term contributes nothing to this debate. I've already explained why the term is scientifically meaningless, yet you continue to use the term.

Listen up, David.

You can not dismiss out of hand the currently used and accepted definition of paranormal.

You can not singlehandedly rewrite the dictionary.

You are not the sole arbiter of how scientific terms are defined.

If you insist on doing this, then everything you say will be rendered useless. Nothing you say can be addressed, because we will never know what it is you are saying.

You are the one insisting on obfuscating this discussion. That is inherently dishonest.

Ok Claus, I am going to trace what we actually said,
...
Thats a clear no.
...
The first statement above is incorrect. My answer was clearly no, not yes. The second statement is your own faulty conclusion to your previous faulty statement.

And yet, you had this to say about PEAR:

I was refering to their lack of randomisation and lack of safeguards for fraud. Unfortunately, because of this the PEAR data cannot be regarded as evidence for remote viewing, IMO. Having said that, on the issue of randomisation of targets, both the data for volitional and instructed trials got similar positive results. We would expect the volition trials to get far higher scores if personal bias were at play, which is interesting.

You do think there are instances of remote viewing. Ergo, you believe that a paranormal phenomenon exists.

Exactly, so stop using the silly term and ask me a meaningful question.

You do not decide what people can ask you, David. If you are not interested in honest debate, stay away.

acceptable scientific methodology and standards.

You cannot refer to these, and reject the definition of paranormal, David. You can't dictate how people should argue, especially not if you want to refer to scientific methodology and standards.

No. See above. I notice that you do not refer to previous statements you make because if you do it would be clear to all what you are doing.

You are demonstrably wrong. Get over it, and move on.

No, I point to instances where we can say with a certain likelyhood that it has happened. Do you know what scientific inference is?

No, David. I am not talking about the statistics. I am talking about the instances where a paranormal phenomenon happened. You have admitted that such instances do happen.

Gravity has a meaningful definition. "Paranormal" does not.

To you, perhaps. But if I said that gravity did not have a meaningful definition, should we just dismiss it?

I can choose not to use a term that has no scientific meaning and offers nothing to this debate.

Yes, that is your choice. You can decide that a term has no meaning to you. But you cannot possibly demand that we agree with you.

Who do you think you are, David? Why do you think we should dance to your tune?

No

And that may be your biggest problem.

No, I'll tell you if others turn up in the course of your discussion. There's only "parnormal" that I can think of just now.

I don't believe you. You are consistently vague and obfuscating in your argumentation. I simply don't believe that you are interested in finding the truth.

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

Wrong. You confuse the use of the term with a belief in it. Dawkins doesn't reject the meaning of God, he just rejects the evidence that there is a God.

You assume that I am a "believer in the paranormal". Incorrect.

I don't assume, David. You have, by your own words, proven yourself to be a believer in the paranormal.

You can disagree with how we spell the word, but why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal /(insert your own definition here)?

 

[davidsmith73]

Listen up, David.

You can not dismiss out of hand the currently used and accepted definition of paranormal.

Yes I can.

You can not singlehandedly rewrite the dictionary.

I am not rewriting it. I am refusing to use a single term because I think it is meaningless. You can have a tantrem about that if you want. Not my problem.

You are not the sole arbiter of how scientific terms are defined.

Paranormal is not a scientific term!

If you insist on doing this, then everything you say will be rendered useless. Nothing you say can be addressed, because we will never know what it is you are saying.

I can say things quite specifically without the use of the term "paranormal" thanks. Just read through my posts.

And yet, you had this to say about PEAR:

"both the data for volitional and instructed trials got similar positive results"

You do think there are instances of remote viewing. Ergo, you believe that a paranormal phenomenon exists.

As I have said, that statement was about the reported results of the volitional vs instructed trials. I made the statement before this where I specifically said that the results of the PEAR work cannot be regarded as evidence for remote viewing. Try again! Just to repeat, the term paranormal is meaningless.

You do not decide what people can ask you, David.

Thats right. However, you do not decide who has to answer your meaningless questions.

If you are not interested in honest debate, stay away.

I'm staying.

You cannot refer to these, and reject the definition of paranormal, David. You can't dictate how people should argue, especially not if you want to refer to scientific methodology and standards.

How does refering to scientific methodology and standards relate to your definition of the paranormal and my refusal to use the term?

No, David. I am not talking about the statistics. I am talking about the instances where a paranormal phenomenon happened. You have admitted that such instances do happen.

No I haven't. I have referenced some papers that I think have valid positive results. There are statistical inferences made in these papers, which is an issue about confidence and likelyhood. Again, you twist my words. Again, you are using the meaningless term "paranormal".

To you, perhaps. But if I said that gravity did not have a meaningful definition, should we just dismiss it?

Only if you can explain why. I have explained why I think "paranormal" is meaningless. We can start a different thread on this if you want.

Yes, that is your choice. You can decide that a term has no meaning to you. But you cannot possibly demand that we agree with you.

I can if you have no argument as to why the term should be used. So tell me Claus, what meaning does the term paranormal have?

I don't believe you. You are consistently vague and obfuscating in your argumentation. I simply don't believe that you are interested in finding the truth.

Thats your biggest problem. Please point to where I have been vague and obfuscating.

Wrong. You confuse the use of the term with a belief in it. Dawkins doesn't reject the meaning of God, he just rejects the evidence that there is a God.

And he would be a strong atheist. Some atheists simply do not have any definition and hence use of the word in their vocabulary. Just because they don't use the term, doesn't mean they are changing its meaning!

I don't assume, David. You have, by your own words, proven yourself to be a believer in the paranormal.

Incorrect. Paranormal is a meaningless term.

You can disagree with how we spell the word, but why are you so afraid of being a believer in the paranormal /(insert your own definition here)?

You assume I am a believer in the paranormal. Incorrect.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes I can.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

I am not rewriting it. I am refusing to use a single term because I think it is meaningless. You can have a tantrem about that if you want. Not my problem.

You are rewriting the dictionary, David.

Paranormal is not a scientific term!

Huh? What, in your book, is a "scientific term", then?

I can say things quite specifically without the use of the term "paranormal" thanks. Just read through my posts.

Yes, you can. You seem to have an almost pathological aversion to the term. You think that if you avoid it, you will not be called to defend something paranormal.

"PA-RA-NOR-MAL!" BOO, David! Did you get spooked?

As I have said, that statement was about the reported results of the volitional vs instructed trials. I made the statement before this where I specifically said that the results of the PEAR work cannot be regarded as evidence for remote viewing. Try again! Just to repeat, the term paranormal is meaningless.

It doesn't matter what you call it, David. It is still paranormal.

Thats right. However, you do not decide who has to answer your meaningless questions.

You can call them what you like, and it is entirely up to you to answer questions about your paranormal beliefs.

But - seriously, David: How can you expect to argue the existence of this, on a skeptical forum, without people calling you on your refusal to accept what is paranormal or not?

I'm staying.

Then, have the courtesy of debating honestly. Don't force your own perceptions on others.

How does refering to scientific methodology and standards relate to your definition of the paranormal and my refusal to use the term?

Because, if you claim the existence of something that falls outside science, then it is by defintion paranormal.

No I haven't. I have referenced some papers that I think have valid positive results. There are statistical inferences made in these papers, which is an issue about confidence and likelyhood. Again, you twist my words. Again, you are using the meaningless term "paranormal".

Yes, you have, David. You admit that there are valid positive results. You believe that paranormal phenomena exist.

Only if you can explain why. I have explained why I think "paranormal" is meaningless. We can start a different thread on this if you want.

There is no need for a different thread. Let's keep this discussion here, where it came up. I am doing exactly what you are doing: Claiming that it is meaningless. You can substitute "paranormal" with "gravity", if you like. Whatever form of argument you have used to dismiss "paranormal", I will use to dismiss "gravity".

Will you accept my dismissal of gravity, yes or no?

I can if you have no argument as to why the term should be used. So tell me Claus, what meaning does the term paranormal have?

Another sign of your dishonesty. We have already been through this, David. Why do you pretend we haven't? Why do you start this anew, as if it has never happened?

Thats your biggest problem. Please point to where I have been vague and obfuscating.

Again, been there, done that. You can close your eyes and pretend it never happened, but it doesn't change reality.

And he would be a strong atheist. Some atheists simply do not have any definition and hence use of the word in their vocabulary. Just because they don't use the term, doesn't mean they are changing its meaning!

Does Dawkins reject the meaning of God, yes or no?

Incorrect. Paranormal is a meaningless term.

David, you have made it clear by now. OK? We understand your stance. Merely repeating it does nothing to convince anyone, but repeating it because you don't think we have understood it by now is..well, it says more about you than us.

You assume I am a believer in the paranormal. Incorrect.

Insert your own definition, David. Why are you so afraid of being a believer in whatever-you-want-to-call-it?

 

[Zep]

We did, PEAR did, they reported they got nothing.

No they didn't. They reported that they got overall siginifcant results. You keep referring to the bit where they said they got no results for the distributive trials. This is true, but the distributive and FIDO trials were only part of the whole program. To focus just on these negative results would be data selection.

Ready? OK, here we go. Quotes only from the original PEAR report.

Although approximately half of these trials demonstrated a strong consistency in the ranks assigned by both the primary and secondary judges and confirmed the acquisition of significant extra-chance information, the others received a wide range of ranks, suggesting that the matches originally assigned to these trials had most likely been arbitrary.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/IU.pdf. p 211

Beyond the accumulation of new empirical data, the first major thrust of the embryonic PEAR program was an attempt to alleviate some of these shortcomings by developing standardized methods of quantifying the information content of the free-response data via a series of computer algorithms.

ibid, p211

Although the statistical results of these new trials were not as strong as those of the ex post facto–encoded data, they were still highly significant.

ibid, p211

Even the null results of the 52 exploratory trials are informative in their indication that the features violated in these excursions from the standard protocol, i.e., the percipients’ knowledge of the agent or of the time of target visitation, may be requisites to generation of the anomalous effect.

ibid, p214

OK so far? Good.

On the other hand, the analytical judging process introduced certain imperfections of its own. For example, the forced ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ responses were limited in their ability to capture the overall ambience or context of a scene, or nuances of subjective or symbolic information that might be detected by human judges. Furthermore, while restricting the extracted information to the 30 specified binary descriptors minimized the reporting task for the participants, it precluded utilization of other potentially relevant features in the transcripts, such as specific colors, textures, architectures, or any other details not covered by the questions.

ibid, p214

And a few problems now get noticed, in the base data...note the waffle used to describe the situation.

Given the less formal nature of the target selection process in the volitional trials, it was possible that the agent’s knowledge of the percipient’s personal preferences or target response patterns could have influenced the target selection and representation, thereby introducing an undue bias into the volitional trial scores.

ibid, p219

But PEAR push on regardless. They wanted to gt the old "good" results now!

Notwithstanding, the diminished effect size prompted a new phase of investigation with the goal of achieving a better understanding of the cause of this attenuation and recovering the stronger yields obtained in the original experiments.

ibid, p223

Enter FIDO...

The composite z-score thus calculated for the 167 FIDO trials was 1.735, indicating a marginally significant overall achievement, but one that was reduced even further from the high yield of the previous data.

ibid, p225.

THE critical paragraph.

Other than the binary-reduction version, which produced nearly as many extra-chance ‘‘misses’’ as ‘‘hits,’’ the results from the other five methods all displayed relatively close concurrence, marginally significant composite z-scores, and effect sizes only about half that of the ab initio trials and only about a fifth as large as that of the ex post facto subset. Although the proportions of trials with positive scores were above 50% in all the calculations, neither these nor the numbers of significant trials exceeded chance expectation. Clearly, FIDO had not achieved its goal of enhancing the PRP yield, despite its potential sensitivity to subtle or ambiguous informational nuances in the data. Despite some variability among the z-scores calculated for individual trials by the different scoring methods, the general consistency across most of the scoring methods for the composite database suggested that the decreased yield was not directly due to inadequacies in the FIDO scoring algorithms, per se, but to a more generic suppression of the anomalous information channel.

They gave it one more go with a slightly different method, but...(and this was the killer)...

Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance.

ibid, p227

Hey! Want to see what a formal presentation of "The skeptics anti-psi thoughts 'blocked' our experiments" looks like? Here you go! Feel the full-blown-excuse-mode coming on from PEAR...

In pondering this paradox, we became cognizant of a number of subtler, less quantifiable factors that also might have had an inhibitory effect on the experiments, such as the laboratory ambience in which the experiments were being conducted. For example, during the period in which the FIDO data were being generated, we were distracted by the need to invest a major effort in preparing a systematic refutation to an article critical of PEAR’s earlier PRP program.(37,38) Although most of the issues raised in that article were irrelevant, incorrect, or already had been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere and shown to be inadequate to account for the observed effects,(23) this enterprise deflected a disproportionate amount of attention from, and dampened the enthusiasm for, the experiments being carried out during that time. Beyond this, in order to forestall further such specious challenges, it led to the imposition of additional unnecessary constraints in the design of the subsequent distributive protocol. Although it is not possible to quantify the influence of such intangible factors, in the study of consciousness-related anomalies where unknown psychological factors appear to be at the heart of the phenomena under study, they cannot be dismissed casually.

ibid, p228.

But the best bit of bullshyte obfuscation that says "we got more and more of less and less, but we are going to bluff around it" is in the abstract:

However, over the course of the program there has been a striking diminution of the anomalous yield that appears to be associated
with the participants’ growing attention to, and dependence upon, the
progressively more detailed descriptor formats and with the corresponding
reduction in the content of the accompanying free-response transcripts. The
possibility that increased emphasis on objective quantification of the phenomenon somehow may have inhibited its inherently subjective expression
is explored in several contexts, ranging from contemporary signal processing
technologies to ancient divination traditions. An intrinsic complementarity is
suggested between the analytical and intuitive aspects of the remote perception process that, like its more familiar counterpart in quantum science, brings with it an inescapable uncertainty that limits the extent to which such anomalous effects can be simultaneously produced and evaluated.

ibid, Abstract.

DS, I shall now let PEAR speak for themselves in future on the matter of their results or lack thereof. Their report is clear enough if you are prepared to read and comprehend. I have done so; it is your turn now. Any further quibbles about their methods should be directed to them, not me.

Unless you you are trying to tell us you think PEAR MISreported their own analyses over 25 years of their work?? If so, pray tell them, not me!

 

[davidsmith73]

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

You can refuse to take me seriously if you want. I'll just carry on making my argument though.

You are rewriting the dictionary, David.

No. I'm refusing to use one term, "paranormal".

Huh? What, in your book, is a "scientific term", then?

One that is based on objective criteria.

Yes, you can. You seem to have an almost pathological aversion to the term. You think that if you avoid it, you will not be called to defend something paranormal.

I can defend my argument made at the start of this thread. If you want to refer to something specific instead of a meaningless term, let me know.

It doesn't matter what you call it, David. It is still paranormal.

Only because you choose to label it as such. It makes no difference to discussion about the actual phenomena whether you label it with a meaningless term.

But - seriously, David: How can you expect to argue the existence of this, on a skeptical forum, without people calling you on your refusal to accept what is paranormal or not?

Because, as I have said many times, "paranormal" is a scientifically meaningless term. We can talk about things specific of course.

Then, have the courtesy of debating honestly.

Thats what I have been doing from the start.

Don't force your own perceptions on others.

I'm not. I'm just refusing to answer a question because one of the terms contained in the question is meaningless.

Because, if you claim the existence of something that falls outside science, then it is by defintion paranormal.

Remote viewing does not fall outside science. By the way, something that is not amenable to scientific investigation is called "supernatural" not "paranormal".

Yes, you have, David. You admit that there are valid positive results.

Correct. I never denied this.

You believe that paranormal phenomena exist.

No. I think experiments show that its likely that remote viewing exists.

There is no need for a different thread. Let's keep this discussion here, where it came up. I am doing exactly what you are doing: Claiming that it is meaningless. You can substitute "paranormal" with "gravity", if you like. Whatever form of argument you have used to dismiss "paranormal", I will use to dismiss "gravity".
Will you accept my dismissal of gravity, yes or no?

Only until you have explained why "gravity" is a meaningless scientific term. This is where you differ from me. I have explained why i think "paranormal" is meaningless.

Another sign of your dishonesty. We have already been through this, David. Why do you pretend we haven't? Why do you start this anew, as if it has never happened?

Because your definition of "paranormal", given before, was a definition of supernatural. Nothing dishonest about that.

Again, been there, done that. You can close your eyes and pretend it never happened, but it doesn't change reality.

Point it out please.

Does Dawkins reject the meaning of God, yes or no?

You told me that he doesn't.

Insert your own definition, David. Why are you so afraid of being a believer in whatever-you-want-to-call-it?

So, why am I afraid of being a believer in the validity of the scientific evidence for remote viewing?

The answer is, I do not believe, I make an inference from experimental results that remote viewing is likely. And I'm not afraid of this.

 

[CFLarsen]

You can refuse to take me seriously if you want. I'll just carry on making my argument though.

And I - and others - will carry on pointing out the futility of making an argument based on self-invented definitions.

No. I'm refusing to use one term, "paranormal".

That's rewriting the dictionary.

One that is based on objective criteria.

And what are those? All of them, please.

I can defend my argument made at the start of this thread. If you want to refer to something specific instead of a meaningless term, let me know.

I am not dancing to your tune, David. If you want a serious debate, you will have to use and accept commonly accepted terms. It serves no purpose to shy away from the meaning of "paranormal".

Only because you choose to label it as such. It makes no difference to discussion about the actual phenomena whether you label it with a meaningless term.

It is not just me, and it is not a choice. By all accounts, you believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

Because, as I have said many times, "paranormal" is a scientifically meaningless term. We can talk about things specific of course.

Remote viewing is specific, and it is paranormal.

Thats what I have been doing from the start.

That is a bald-faced lie, David. You do not debate honestly, if you want to dictate what the meaning of words are.

I'm not. I'm just refusing to answer a question because one of the terms contained in the question is meaningless.

No, you are refusing to answer a question, because you know what the consequences are: You are almost pathologically afraid of being labelled a believer in the paranormal. That is your only reason why you shun the word.

Remote viewing does not fall outside science.

Is it explainable by science, yes or no?

By the way, something that is not amenable to scientific investigation is called "supernatural" not "paranormal".

More word games.

Correct. I never denied this.

Then you admit to believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

No. I think experiments show that its likely that remote viewing exists.

No. You think that there have been incidents where information has been obtained by remote viewing. That means you believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

Only until you have explained why "gravity" is a meaningless scientific term. This is where you differ from me. I have explained why i think "paranormal" is meaningless.

And I have told you, whatever argument you have used to explain why "paranormal" is meaningless, I will use to explain why "gravity" is meaningless. Now, answer the question:

Will you accept my dismissal of gravity, yes or no?

Because your definition of "paranormal", given before, was a definition of supernatural. Nothing dishonest about that.

It is not my definition, David. It is the commonly accepted one.

Point it out please.

Don't play games.

You told me that he doesn't.

I am asking you, David: Does Dawkins reject the meaning of God, yes or no?

So, why am I afraid of being a believer in the validity of the scientific evidence for remote viewing?

The answer is, I do not believe, I make an inference from experimental results that remote viewing is likely. And I'm not afraid of this.

That doesn't answer the question. I am not asking you why you believe that Remote Viewing is likely, I am asking you are so afraid of being a believer in whatever-you-want-to-call-it?

 

[latent aaaack]

I'm relatively new here and I would like to know if there's a good skeptical take on the results of the GCP which are to be found at this page: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Specifically I mean the claim that the total probability is .000001869 for all the work they've done. I've read a skeptical article criticising certain GCP claims about 9/11 but not a refute of this statistic.