PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[davidsmith73]

Zep, I appreciate the time you've put into trying to find support for your argument, but posting quotes without any explanation as to how they support what you are saying is not very helpful. I'll address the quotes as follows.

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."

This refers to the Chicago trials that were assessed for inter-judge variability. They used rank judging rather than the more sophisticated analysis they developed later. The overall significant result they reported did not include these human rank-judging analyses.

"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."

As the quote says, they developed their more objective scoring technique after they found this inter-judge variability mentioned before. The overall positive result they reported only included trials run through this standardised method.

"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."

Where's the problem here? The above quote refers to an initial set of 35 trials whereby the participants answered binary descriptor questions. They were highly significant but not as significant as the free response data that was then encoded into binary. This does not imply that the drop in statistical significance was anything to do with the analysis because both used the binary method, nor does it bear any relevence to your claim that PEAR reported they got "no results in the end".

"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."

I'm not sure what this quote is saying, precisely, but I guess it is referring to one or more methodological problems we agree were present in the PEAR work. But I fail to see how this supports your claim that PEAR reported they got "nothing in the end".

"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."

Again, there's no problem here. This bears no relevance to your claim that PEAR reported no overall result, or your hypothesis that the drop in results were due to the analysis method. Here, they are describing the limitation that binary descriptor questions impose on the participants in terms of conveying a rich representation of their conscious impressions.

"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. "

Zep, we have agreed that this is a methodological error in the PEAR work. My objection in my last post to you was aimed specifically at your claim that PEAR reported no overall result and your hypothesis that the drop in results were due to more objective analysis, both of which are simply not true. This quote above bears no relevance those claims of yours.

"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."

Yes, there was a diminished effect size. Was this down to the analysis method? No it wasn't, as I've explained. Did this diminished effect size mean that PEAR reported overall null results? No it didn't, because they cleary report a significant overall result. You can see it in the abstract. You keep referring to a subset of experiments that got insignificant results and then conclude that this means PEAR reported overall null results, which is absurd.

"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. "

Here is one such subset of results. What are trying to say by posting this quote? We know that the FIDO data got marginally significant results. The drop in results was not due to the analysis method because they treated this data as binary and got no artifactual positive result. I keep explaining this point to you, but you seem to ignore it or do not understand.

"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. "

As PEAR clearly state here, we have the FIDO data treated in a number of different ways, including binary, and the p-values are all similar. This shows that the drop in results is not due to the analysis method. Its odd that you post a quote that directly contradicts your hypothesis that the drop in results is due to the analysis method.

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

The results of the distributive trials were at chance level. This is a subset of results, not the overall results. PEAR reported overall significant results for their entire database (excluding the human judged Chicago trials). Also, these trials that used distributive descriptor questions, when analysed as binary answers, did not get positive results.

To summarise,

PEAR reported an overall highly significant result, contrary to what you claim.

Your hypothesis that the drop in results are due to the analysis method is not supported by the PEAR data.

 

[davidsmith73]

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

I'm not making an argument that uses the term "paranormal" at all. I'm refusing to use the term.

That's rewriting the dictionary.

No. Its refusing to use a term I find to be meaningless to this discussion.

And what are those? All of them, please.

Measurability. Third person verification.

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".

No, I don't have to accept the commonly accepted meaning of "paranormal" at all. I think its a meaningless term. I'm afraid you'll have to ask your silly questions to someone else.

It is not just me,

Thats true. Other choose to use this meaningless term too.

and it is not a choice.

Yes it is. You can, at any time, reflect on the meaning of the term "paranormal" and choose not to use it in a discussion.

By all accounts, you believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

No, I think the term paranormal is meaningless.

Remote viewing is specific, and it is paranormal.

In the context of the papers I referencd, yes it is specific. Since I think the term "paranormal" is meaningless, I think it is meaningless to label remote viewing as "paranormal".

That is a bald-faced lie, David.

Since you have accused me of lying, could you be courteous enough to point out where?

You do not debate honestly, if you want to dictate what the meaning of words are.

I am not dictating. I am making a choice not to answer your question based on my argument that "paranormal" is a meaningless term. If you want to bring up a counter-argument then feel free. Accusing me of lying and dishonesty without backing that up says much about your personality Claus.

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.

I am refusing to answer your question, because it contains a meaningless term, and the consequences of answering it would be to enter into a debate based on a meaningless term.

Is it explainable by science, yes or no?

I assume that is it. I assume that everything, except qualia, is explainable by science.

More word games.

One definition of supernatural from dictionary.com:

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

Then you admit to believe in a paranormal phenomenon.

No. I think paranormal is a meaningless term.

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

No. I think its likely there have been incidents where information has been obtained by remote viewing. I do not believe in "paranormal" phenomenon because i think "paranormal" is a meaningless term.

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.

Ok. I'll just recap to save you going back over posts. Paranormal is a meaningless term because it is entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not. The term is used by people who want to group certain phenomena together, based on thier subjective judgement, for their own personal agenda of debunking or promoting. Your turn with gravity.

Now, answer the question:

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

Only untill you've told me how gravity is a meaningless term. Otherwise I don't know what I'm dismissing.

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

It was still a definition of the supernatural, whether commonly accepted or not.

Don't play games.

I'm not playing games. Please point out where I have been vague and obfuscating.

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

I don't know. I haven't read his material on atheism.

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

I do not believe in remote viewing, I infer that it is likely, and I am not afraid of that.

 

[CFLarsen]

To summarise,

PEAR reported an overall highly significant result, contrary to what you claim.

Your hypothesis that the drop in results are due to the analysis method is not supported by the PEAR data.

David, don't you realize how hard it is to understand what you are saying? You take great pains to stress that you don't think PEAR found any evidence of remote viewing, yet you also state that they did report "an overall highly significant result"?

Which, incidentally, they didn't.

When asked directly, you say (after quite a few repetitions) that there is no evidence of remote viewing. But you also say that there was "an overall highly significant result".

You are playing with words here. You are playing games. Obfuscation. You seek confusion.

I'm not making an argument that uses the term "paranormal" at all. I'm refusing to use the term.

Yes, we know, David. We know that you refuse to use the term.

No. Its refusing to use a term I find to be meaningless to this discussion.

David, you are completely beyond reason. How can redefining "paranormal" not be rewriting the dictionary?

Measurability. Third person verification.

That's it? What about independent replication of results? What about recycling of theories? What about refinement of theories?

No, I don't have to accept the commonly accepted meaning of "paranormal" at all. I think its a meaningless term. I'm afraid you'll have to ask your silly questions to someone else.

No, I am asking you, David. You are the one claiming evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. Whatever you want to call it, that's what it is.

Thats true. Other choose to use this meaningless term too.

Yeah, except for a minuscule minority. Why should we dance to your tune, David? If you want to ignore the term "paranormal", then you have to present a coherent, convincing argument. You haven't.

Yes it is. You can, at any time, reflect on the meaning of the term "paranormal" and choose not to use it in a discussion.

Only if I seek obfuscation and not clarification. We can't invent our own meanings of words, David.

No, I think the term paranormal is meaningless.

Yes, we know! Stop repeating what everyone knows, like some autistic parrot.

In the context of the papers I referencd, yes it is specific. Since I think the term "paranormal" is meaningless, I think it is meaningless to label remote viewing as "paranormal".

Since you have accused me of lying, could you be courteous enough to point out where?

I did: If you want to rewrite the commonly accepted meaning of words, you are not debating honestly. You want obfuscation, not clarification. When you claim you are debating honestly, you are a liar.

I am not dictating. I am making a choice not to answer your question based on my argument that "paranormal" is a meaningless term. If you want to bring up a counter-argument then feel free. Accusing me of lying and dishonesty without backing that up says much about your personality Claus.

Yes, turn the spotlight away from your obfuscation and try to paint me as someone with personality problems.

David, we are discussing your insistence on rewriting the dictionary, because you want to avoid the term "paranormal". You claim evidence of remote viewing, the onus is on you.

I am refusing to answer your question, because it contains a meaningless term, and the consequences of answering it would be to enter into a debate based on a meaningless term.

WE KNOW!

I assume that is it. I assume that everything, except qualia, is explainable by science.

No, don't assume. You are the one making the claim here.

Is Remote Viewing explainable by science?

YES?

or

NO?

One definition of supernatural from dictionary.com:

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

Here are the other ones you left out:

of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

No wonder you are so busy distancing yourself from those terms.

No. I think paranormal is a meaningless term.

David....

No. I think its likely there have been incidents where information has been obtained by remote viewing. I do not believe in "paranormal" phenomenon because i think "paranormal" is a meaningless term.

No, you do not think it is likely. You were crystal clear (for once!): You believe that, in some cases, remote viewing has happened.

Ok. I'll just recap to save you going back over posts. Paranormal is a meaningless term because it is entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not. The term is used by people who want to group certain phenomena together, based on thier subjective judgement, for their own personal agenda of debunking or promoting. Your turn with gravity.

Gravity is a meaningless term because it is entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not. The term is used by people who want to group certain phenomena together, based on thier(sic!) subjective judgement, for their own personal agenda of debunking or promoting.

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

Only untill you've told me how gravity is a meaningless term. Otherwise I don't know what I'm dismissing.

I did. Now, answer the question: Will you accept my dismissal of gravity, yes or no?

It was still a definition of the supernatural, whether commonly accepted or not.

Is it commonly accepted, yes or no?

I'm not playing games. Please point out where I have been vague and obfuscating.

I don't know. I haven't read his material on atheism.

How can you reject the point (in post #115) by referring to Dawkins' "strong atheism", if you have no clue as to what Dawkins thinks? You are merely rejecting the point out of hand, because you don't want to answer the question.

This is a common trait in you, David. Anything you want to avoid, you merely dismiss, giving phony excuses.

I do not believe in remote viewing, I infer that it is likely, and I am not afraid of that.

Liar. You expressed a clear belief that, in some cases, Remote Viewing happened.

 

[davidsmith73]

David, don't you realize how hard it is to understand what you are saying? You take great pains to stress that you don't think PEAR found any evidence of remote viewing, yet you also state that they did report "an overall highly significant result"?

Which, incidentally, they didn't.

PEAR reported that they found an overall highly significant result from their entire database. You can read that in the abstract. However, the data that PEAR reported has to be regarded as invalid because of the methodological flaws of PEAR.

When asked directly, you say (after quite a few repetitions) that there is no evidence of remote viewing. But you also say that there was "an overall highly significant result".

You are playing with words here. You are playing games. Obfuscation. You seek confusion.

No. I said that PEAR reported an overall significant result. Just look at the abstract fro quick confirmation. However, the data that PEAR reported has to be regarded as invalid because of the methodological flaws of PEAR. I never said anything contrary to this. Please show me where I have said anything different.

Yes, we know, David. We know that you refuse to use the term.

Good. Then don't be surprised that I don't answer a question that contains the term. Thanks.

David, you are completely beyond reason. How can redefining "paranormal" not be rewriting the dictionary?

I am not redefining it, so nothing is being rewritten.

That's it? What about independent replication of results? What about recycling of theories? What about refinement of theories?

What about them? Thats the process of science, not criteria applied to scientifically meaningful terms.

No, I am asking you, David. You are the one claiming evidence of a paranormal phenomenon. Whatever you want to call it, that's what it is.

Since I find the term paranormal meaningless, I can't claim evidence for a meaningless term.

Yeah, except for a minuscule minority. Why should we dance to your tune, David? If you want to ignore the term "paranormal", then you have to present a coherent, convincing argument. You haven't.

Please explain why my argument is not coherent, otherwise you have no counter-argument.

Only if I seek obfuscation and not clarification.

Rejecting the term "paranormal" makes things much clearer because you are no longer imposing subjective interpretations of what is normal and what is not onto natural phenomena. Labelling a phenomena as "paranormal" contributes nothing to any discussion of the phenomena.

We can't invent our own meanings of words, David.

You wouldn't be inventing a meaning, you would be rejecting a meaningless term.

Yes, we know! Stop repeating what everyone knows, like some autistic parrot.

As long as you stop making statement about my views that include the term "paranormal", I will stop.

I did: If you want to rewrite the commonly accepted meaning of words, you are not debating honestly.

If I state openly that I refuse to use a term because it is meaningless, this is clearly honest debate. You may not like it, but I have hidden nothing about my views.

You want obfuscation, not clarification.

No. I am making it clear that I refuse to use the term paranormal.

When you claim you are debating honestly, you are a liar.

Please point out where I am not debating honestly.

Yes, turn the spotlight away from your obfuscation and try to paint me as someone with personality problems.

There is no obfuscation going on, and I thought I would just repay the favour.

David, we are discussing your insistence on rewriting the dictionary,

No rewriting involved. see above.

because you want to avoid the term "paranormal".

Correct. And I've explained why. See above.

You claim evidence of remote viewing,

Correct.

the onus is on you.

the onus is not on me to use the term paranormal, because I find it meaningless.

No, don't assume. You are the one making the claim here.

Is Remote Viewing explainable by science?

YES?

or

NO?

I don't know, which is why we must assume that it is and attempt to explain it in scientific terms.

Here are the other ones you left out:

of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

No wonder you are so busy distancing yourself from those terms.

I'm not distancing myself from these terms at all. I pointed out that something that is not amenable to scientific investigation is called "supernatural" not "paranormal". You then accused me of playing word games. I responded with a definition of supernatural from the dictionary. We can discuss this definition or any of the above if you want.

No, you do not think it is likely. You were crystal clear (for once!): You believe that, in some cases, remote viewing has happened.

No, I have always said that it is likely.

Gravity is a meaningless term because it is entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not. The term is used by people who want to group certain phenomena together, based on thier(sic!) subjective judgement, for their own personal agenda of debunking or promoting.

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

No, because gravity is based on objective measurements, which you can deomstrate. It is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not. With the term "paranormal", it is true and demonstrable that what is viewed as "paranormal" and what is not is based on subjective opinion.

Is it commonly accepted, yes or no?

I don't know.

How can you reject the point (in post #115) by referring to Dawkins' "strong atheism", if you have no clue as to what Dawkins thinks?

You told me in post 114 that Dawkins doesn't reject the meaning of God, he just rejects the evidence that there is a God, which means, according to my definition of strong atheism, that he is a strong atheist. I was refering to another form of atheism where someone simply does not use the term "god" in their vocabulary because they regard it as meaningless because they do not have any beliefs about "god".

You are merely rejecting the point out of hand, because you don't want to answer the question.

No. See above.

This is a common trait in you, David. Anything you want to avoid, you merely dismiss, giving phony excuses.

The only thing I want to avoid so far is the term "paranormal", and there's nothing phony about my reasons for this.

Liar. You expressed a clear belief that, in some cases, Remote Viewing happened.

Please point out where and I'll show you why you are wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

What about them? Thats the process of science, not criteria applied to scientifically meaningful terms.

More word games.

I asked you to list all of scientific terms. Please do so.

I don't know, which is why we must assume that it is and attempt to explain it in scientific terms.

Why don't you know?

No, because gravity is based on objective measurements, which you can deomstrate. It is not entirely subjective what is deemed gravity and what is not. With the term "paranormal", it is true and demonstrable that what is viewed as "paranormal" and what is not is based on subjective opinion.

The paranormal is also based on objective measurements, which you can demonstrate. It is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not. With the term "gravity", it is true and demonstrable that what is viewed as "gravity" and what is not is based on subjective opinion.

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

I don't know.

Of course you do, David. Answer the question: Is the definition of "supernatural" commonly accepted, yes or no?

You told me in post 114 that Dawkins doesn't reject the meaning of God, he just rejects the evidence that there is a God, which means, according to my definition

Come again? Your definition? I thought you said you only had problems with "paranormal"? Now, you also have problems with "God".

List all the terms you have problems with, David. It serves no purpose if you keep using your own definitions.

of strong atheism, that he is a strong atheist. I was refering to another form of atheism where someone simply does not use the term "god" in their vocabulary because they regard it as meaningless because they do not have any beliefs about "god".

But Dawkins clearly doesn't do that. When he says "God", he is using the term as we (most of us) do.

David, you seem incapable of carrying a normal conversation. Everything has to be questioned, not because you doubt it, but because you want everything - and everyone - to conform to your worldview. We have to discuss on your terms, using your definitions (which have a habit of popping up at the most convenient times), and accept that white is black, only when it isn't.

 

[davidsmith73]

More word games.

I asked you to list all of scientific terms. Please do so.

To list all scientific terms would take a lifetime and serve no purpose to this discussion. Why would you want such a list?

Why don't you know?

Because no explanation that can account for the results of the experiments I refered to has yet been put forward and verified.

The paranormal is also based on objective measurements, which you can demonstrate. It is not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not.

What objective measurements define the "paranormal" ?
Why is it not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not ?

With the term "gravity", it is true and demonstrable that what is viewed as "gravity" and what is not is based on subjective opinion.

No. It is based on Newtons law of gravitation, F=mg

Of course you do, David.

No I don't.

Answer the question: Is the definition of "supernatural" commonly accepted, yes or no?

I don't know.

Come again? Your definition? I thought you said you only had problems with "paranormal"? Now, you also have problems with "God".

Your are not reading my posts properly. I said according to my definition of strong atheism, not god.

List all the terms you have problems with, David. It serves no purpose if you keep using your own definitions.

If a term pops up that I am not happy with I'll let you know.

But Dawkins clearly doesn't do that. When he says "God", he is using the term as we (most of us) do.

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. Dawkins may well not do that, as you told me. I never said he did.

 

[steenkh]

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.'

Of course I would. And I would have been right, too!

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

This fact does not upset me. I just regard it as rather unlikely.

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

I am not whining. I am pointing to the fact that some people are using very shaky evidence to to support an unformulated theory that would require a major rewrite of most of the laws of physics.

Go ahead, bring on the evidence! I would regard a rewriting of the laws of physics as extremely exciting and interesting, and I would have nothing to fear, or be sad about. After all, the world would not have changed, only our description of it.

But I do not think we live in such interesting times.

 

[Flange Desire]

Why do you think that 'remote viewing is very likely'?

And why do you think that more replications are needed?

This seems contadictory.
If 'remote viewing is very likely' then the evidence to support it would be copious, obvious and compelling, and further testing would not be needed.

 

[Zep]

The results of the distributive trials were at chance level. This is a subset of results, not the overall results. PEAR reported overall significant results for their entire database (excluding the human judged Chicago trials). Also, these trials that used distributive descriptor questions, when analysed as binary answers, did not get positive results.

To summarise,

PEAR reported an overall highly significant result, contrary to what you claim.

Your hypothesis that the drop in results are due to the analysis method is not supported by the PEAR data.

You are simply gainsaying the obvious by inventing spurious excuses. Read it any way you want, here's PEAR's FINAL RESULTS AS PRESENTED:

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

 

[Ersby]

You are simply gainsaying the obvious by inventing spurious excuses. Read it any way you want, here's PEAR's FINAL RESULTS AS PRESENTED:

That's not PEAR's final result. The "completely indistiguishable from chance" quote refers to one series of 150 trials.

Take a look at the quote in context, and it becomes clear: "Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance."

Talking about six scoring recipes makes no sense if you're referring to the database as a whole. It must be referring to the Distributive trials.

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

To list all scientific terms would take a lifetime and serve no purpose to this discussion. Why would you want such a list?

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.

Because no explanation that can account for the results of the experiments I refered to has yet been put forward and verified.

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.

As PEAR themselves have admitted.

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

What objective measurements define the "paranormal" ? Why is it not entirely subjective what is deemed paranormal and what is not ?

I've explained enough for you to understand. Will you accept my dismissal of gravity, yes or no?

No. It is based on Newtons law of gravitation, F=mg

I can make a pin hover, thereby negating gravity.

I don't know.

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?

Your are not reading my posts properly. I said according to my definition of strong atheism, not god.

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

If a term pops up that I am not happy with I'll let you know.

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.

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. Dawkins may well not do that, as you told me. I never said he did.

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?

 

[Zep]

That's not PEAR's final result. The "completely indistiguishable from chance" quote refers to one series of 150 trials.

Take a look at the quote in context, and it becomes clear: "Once again, there was reasonably good agreement among the six scoring recipes, but the overall results were now completely indistinguishable from chance."

Talking about six scoring recipes makes no sense if you're referring to the database as a whole. It must be referring to the Distributive trials.

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.

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.

Why does the paper REPEAT this assertion elsewhere? And why does it ALSO contain passages making excuses for no results? And why does it go on to try to explain why there SHOULD be results, according to various mumbo-jumbo theories like ancient divination and I-Ching?

And why is this reference to a non-result in the abstract right up front?

...over the course of the program there has been a striking diminution of the anomalous yield...

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

 

[Ersby]

Well, the paper's a mess. But I think that the figure quoted in the abstract and the tables on page 231 are what they consider to be their final results.

I took another look at the papers over the weekend and started poking around the data from the individual trials. I was reminded that there were over twenty different scoring techniques used thoughout. I've started to go through the five binary scoring methods to see how well they agree. It's early days, but there's little correspondence between them.

Another thing about the effect of subjective choices on the binary data. Look at the descriptions of the five scoring methods on page 213, and see which you think would be most susceptible. I think A certainly would, and should show inflated scores. At the low end, D and E would be largely free of the problem. Any ideas?

 

[Zep]

Well, the paper's a mess. But I think that the figure quoted in the abstract and the tables on page 231 are what they consider to be their final results.

I took another look at the papers over the weekend and started poking around the data from the individual trials. I was reminded that there were over twenty different scoring techniques used thoughout. I've started to go through the five binary scoring methods to see how well they agree. It's early days, but there's little correspondence between them.

Another thing about the effect of subjective choices on the binary data. Look at the descriptions of the five scoring methods on page 213, and see which you think would be most susceptible. I think A certainly would, and should show inflated scores. At the low end, D and E would be largely free of the problem. Any ideas?

If you wish to embark on the details of the measurements and statistics, this is a first reference: "CRITIQUE OF THE PEAR REMOTE-VIEWING EXPERIMENTS" - George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick

 

[Ersby]

That was the first thing I linked to on page one.

 

[Zep]

Indeed! My mistake!

 

[davidsmith73]

I am pointing to the fact that some people are using very shaky evidence to to support an unformulated theory that would require a major rewrite of most of the laws of physics.

Why do you think a rewrite is necessarily needed?

I know of at least one theory that apparently can explain psi phenomena and not require a rewrite. Although I admit I do not understand it very well.

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/theoretical.htm

 

[davidsmith73]

Why do you think that 'remote viewing is very likely'?

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

And why do you think that more replications are needed?

This seems contadictory.
If 'remote viewing is very likely' then the evidence to support it would be copious, obvious and compelling, and further testing would not be needed.

Like most people here, i think extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I would be happier if it were very very likely!

 

[Cuddles]

Why do you think a rewrite is necessarily needed?

I know of at least one theory that apparently can explain psi phenomena and not require a rewrite. Although I admit I do not understand it very well.

http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/theoretical.htm

Do you mean this one?

Among the most difficult yet tantalizing anomalies confronting science today are those usually called "psychic" or "psi" phenomena. Laboratory evidence strongly suggests that these well-confirmed but enigmatic phenomena are due to real physical effects which are as yet poorly understood.

This paper presents a simple theory of relational contraints (Link Physics) that predicts exactly the type of psi phenomena which are often observed in controlled laboratory experiments -- without requiring any new forces, fields, particles, or any other major insult to established physical law within its proper domain. To illustrate the theory, a simple hypothetical psi experiment is described to explore the full implications of random processes interacting in an environment where constraints may be present on both the past and the future. This theory is testable, can help to clarify some of the stranger aspects of quantum physics, gives new insight into the nature of randomness and causality, and carries significant implications for future science and for society as a whole

Bolding mine. 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.

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.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Why do you think that? Based on what evidence?

Like most people here, i think extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I would be happier if it were very very likely!

What is the difference between "very likely" and "very very likely"?

This is not another one of your word games, is it?