psychics

[panchov]

Geez, I can't even get my two cats to get along (hence the stupid class that started this whole thread). You are one lucky man. Except I guess skeptics don't believe in luck so I should say something like your good fortune randomly exceeds what would normally be expected (at least by some people) in the realm of the social behaviors of your pets.

Your doggy is so cute - I'm glad she doesn't think I'm going to burn in hell btw!

 

[Apology]

Geez, I can't even get my two cats to get along (hence the stupid class that started this whole thread). You are one lucky man. Except I guess skeptics don't believe in luck so I should say something like your good fortune randomly exceeds what would normally be expected (at least by some people) in the realm of the social behaviors of your pets.

Your doggy is so cute - I'm glad she doesn't think I'm going to burn in hell btw!

Ah, your post made me laugh, panchov. I think I will memorize the phrase, "Your good fortune randomly exceeds what would normally be expected, at least by some people," and recite it to anyone who asks me to read them their horoscope.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Geez, I can't even get my two cats to get along (hence the stupid class that started this whole thread). You are one lucky man. Except I guess skeptics don't believe in luck so I should say something like your good fortune randomly exceeds what would normally be expected (at least by some people) in the realm of the social behaviors of your pets.

Your doggy is so cute - I'm glad she doesn't think I'm going to burn in hell btw!

If I could figure out how to post big pictures, I would show the whole menagerie.
Molly doesn't think anyone will burn in hell. She has no concept of that, making her more intelligent than most humans in this country. Then again, you could say that about a snail or a rock.

 

[schlitt]

Here is an even more brief summary for the rest of you: "Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated." So, have any flaws and biases in the experiments been identified since Hyman wrote that in 1995? If so, what are they?

There is no need for further research into this already discredited experiment.

The article speaks for itself, you have simply ignored 99% of the content.

It is up to Ms Utts to have her findings independently replicated. Until then, no weighting should be given to her meaningless and incompetently concluded experiments.

 

[my_wan]

Take a look at the list of ideas for term papers Professor Jessica Utts proposes.
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/is8cf02/Papers.html

 

[Apology]

Take a look at the list of ideas for term papers Professor Jessica Utts proposes.
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/is8cf02/Papers.html

LOL! Remote viewing indeed.

 

[Rodney]

There is no need for further research into this already discredited experiment.

The article speaks for itself, you have simply ignored 99% of the content.

It is up to Ms Utts to have her findings independently replicated. Until then, no weighting should be given to her meaningless and incompetently concluded experiments.

I'll repeat my question: "So, have any flaws and biases in the experiments been identified since Hyman wrote that in 1995? If so, what are they?"

 

[sthomson]

I'll repeat my question: "So, have any flaws and biases in the experiments been identified since Hyman wrote that in 1995? If so, what are they?"

The problem, Rodney, is that the program was classified for the 10-year period during which it was conducted. This means that there was no communal scientific oversight of the program during the years it was conducted. It is increasingly difficult to point out flaws and biases as the investigators and participants gain more distance from the program. Furthermore, Dr. May has been reticent to release his data to skeptically-inclined scientific organizations even since declassification.

I think David Marks The Psychology of the Psychic is considered a serious analysis of Dr. May's research at SAIC, and I've read that he does identify methodological flaws with the research. However, I haven't read it yet.

Nevertheless, both Dr. Utts AND Hyman pointed out one methodological flaw: The fact that the director of the SAIC program, Dr. May, was also the sole "blind judge".

In fact, Hyman points out a serious flaw with the whole program: it, unlike any other scientific expedition (except maybe SETI), relies solely on statistics to demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon. It implies that psychic phenomenon can be compared to an idealized, normalized distribution without any evidence that the comparison is an accurate one.

Speaking of classified, a friend and I were talking about government "applied research" grants in general. They're all classified programs, and the rumor is that any proposal which doesn't directly violate the laws of physics is considered and funded.

 

[schlitt]

I'll repeat my question: "So, have any flaws and biases in the experiments been identified since Hyman wrote that in 1995? If so, what are they?"

You seem unable to understand the implications of what i first wrote. Luckily, Sthompson has provided a more direct answer for you to ignore.

 

[cyborg]

I mean I would think the word skeptic would indicate one also had an open mind, but these guys just seem to be negative about EVERYTHING.

Negative. Open. Mind. Everything.

It's not about those things: it's about what is and what isn't. Those things are just emotionally loaded words that get you nowhere fast.

 

[Rodney]

The problem, Rodney, is that the program was classified for the 10-year period during which it was conducted. This means that there was no communal scientific oversight of the program during the years it was conducted. It is increasingly difficult to point out flaws and biases as the investigators and participants gain more distance from the program. Furthermore, Dr. May has been reticent to release his data to skeptically-inclined scientific organizations even since declassification.

I think David Marks The Psychology of the Psychic is considered a serious analysis of Dr. May's research at SAIC, and I've read that he does identify methodological flaws with the research. However, I haven't read it yet.

Nevertheless, both Dr. Utts AND Hyman pointed out one methodological flaw: The fact that the director of the SAIC program, Dr. May, was also the sole "blind judge".

In fact, Hyman points out a serious flaw with the whole program: it, unlike any other scientific expedition (except maybe SETI), relies solely on statistics to demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon. It implies that psychic phenomenon can be compared to an idealized, normalized distribution without any evidence that the comparison is an accurate one.

You seem to be under the misimpression that the SAIC program was done in a vacuum. But as Utts notes:

"The [psi] phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects."

 

[Jeff Corey]

Fraud? That works for me. Case closed.

 

[schlitt]

You seem to be under the misimpression that the SAIC program was done in a vacuum. But as Utts notes:

"The [psi] phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects."

This statement is ridiculous.

-It does not specify which laboratories and cultures she is referring to.

-If it is referring the different tests within her experiment as a whole, then there is no reason to believe different methodologies would have been used, unless she can show this to be the case with evidence.

-If it is referring to other independent experiments then she has given no evidence of these experiments, and her statement could quite simply be false or fictional.

-Most importantly, this does not in any way address the criticisms leveled at the experiments findings by Ray Hyman.


-

 

[sthomson]

This statement is ridiculous.

-It does not specify which laboratories and cultures she is referring to.

Rodney will point out that later in the article Dr. Utts references the ganzfeild experiments performed at a few other institutions. However, I've already told him that the ganzfield experiments are a terrible comparison, since the procedures are almost completely different. The fact that the ganzfield experiments get the same results as the SAIC ones is actually shows a flaw in the entire theory of esp. Furthermore, Hyman has already pointed out several methodological flaws with the ganzfield experiments, flaws he has shown to significantly effect the data sets.

-Most importantly, this does not in any way address the criticisms leveled at the experiments findings by Ray Hyman.

Exactly. Rodney seems to be incapable of refuting Hyman's analysis, except with unsubstantiated quotes from Dr. Utts paper.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney will point out that later in the article Dr. Utts references the ganzfeild experiments performed at a few other institutions. However, I've already told him that the ganzfield experiments are a terrible comparison, since the procedures are almost completely different. The fact that the ganzfield experiments get the same results as the SAIC ones is actually shows a flaw in the entire theory of esp.

And what flaw might that be?

Furthermore, Hyman has already pointed out several methodological flaws with the ganzfield experiments, flaws he has shown to significantly effect the data sets.

The ganzfeld experiments have become progressively tighter. What flaws has he found in the more recent ones?

Exactly. Rodney seems to be incapable of refuting Hyman's analysis, except with unsubstantiated quotes from Dr. Utts paper.

What is there to refute when Hyman concludes: "Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated"? Again, I ask whether flaws have now been identified in the past dozen years. If so, what are they?

 

[sthomson]

And what flaw might that be?

They are described in great detail in Hyman's write-up. I refuse to summarize it for you again.

The ganzfeld experiments have become progressively tighter. What flaws has he found in the more recent ones?

They are described in Hyman's write-up. I refuse to summarize it for you.

Furthermore,In 1999, a meta-analysis of current autoganzfeld experiments was performed showing no evidence of psi. The experiments were reportedly conducted using the procedures outlined jointly by Hyman and Honorton. In other words, "tighter" ganzfeld experiments show no evidence of psychic abilities.

 

[sthomson]

What is there to refute when Hyman concludes: "Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated"? Again, I ask whether flaws have now been identified in the past dozen years. If so, what are they?

Starting on page 78, David Marks describes why it is nearly impossible to obtain any records that scientists can use to critique the data produced by the SAIC remote viewing experiments. Quite a fascinating read!

Edited to add: There's a summary on this page 82, for Rodney.

 

[Rodney]

Starting on page 78, David Marks describes why it is nearly impossible to obtain any records that scientists can use to critique the data produced by the SAIC remote viewing experiments. Quite a fascinating read!

Edited to add: There's a summary on this page 82, for Rodney.

I can't view either page 78 or 82. What does the summary say?

 

[my_wan]

What is there to refute when Hyman concludes: "Although, I cannot point to any obvious flaws in the experiments, the experimental program is too recent and insufficiently evaluated to be sure that flaws and biases have been eliminated"? Again, I ask whether flaws have now been identified in the past dozen years. If so, what are they?

That was not his conclusions. That was cherry picking a statement from his conclusions. You conveniently ignore in the same summation where he says; "However, the occurrence of statistical effects does not warrant the conclusion that psychic functioning has been demonstrated". You then ask us to provide you with flaws that have since come to light. Not only is the original raw data not fully available to us but that is exactly what Mr. Hyman spent the entire article talking about.

From that same article;
What about;

the use of the same viewers and the same judge across the different experiments.

Ed May, apparently the principle investigator, was the sole judge in all the free response experiments.
To make matters worse;

May's rationale for this unusual procedure was that he is familiar with the response styles of the individual viewers. If a viewer, for example, talks about bridges, May--from his familiarity with this viewer--might realize that this viewer uses bridges to refer to any object that is on water.

That means if I say it was a bridge and it was really a boat, swimming duck, pontoon airplane, Harlequin bug, etc. I got it right. Just because Mr Hyman was was too professional to simply say 'hogwash' and instead gave a professional overview of the problems with the whole affair doesn't give you the license to cherry pick his words.

If you still wonder why people here are not always very nice read this again.

 

[sthomson]

Rodney - if you use Amazon.com "search inside" for SAIC, it's "Page 54" and "Page 59". He continues on with his critique in the next chapter, so you should try to check the book out from your library if you're looking for a skeptic's perspective.

I also found an article directly critiquing Experiment 1 of the SAIC remote viewing experiments. Utts discussed Experiment 1 the most in her article:

Experiment one of the SAIC remote viewing program: a critical re-evaluation
Journal of Parapsychology, The, Dec, 1998 by Richard Wiseman, Julie Milton