Richard Wiseman

[Steve001]

Can anyone point me to a better understanding of this part of the bolded quote by Richard ? Or if you know let me know.

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

 

[Gr8wight]

Can anyone point me to a better understanding of this part of the bolded quote by Richard ? Or if you know let me know.

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

A simple google search of the bolded part of the quote led me to this: Dr. Richard Wiseman on remote viewing - a clarification. It took me about eight seconds. It was the eighth result on the first page of results. You didn't even really try, did you?

 

[Rodney]

A simple google search of the bolded part of the quote led me to this: Dr. Richard Wiseman on remote viewing - a clarification. It took me about eight seconds. It was the eighth result on the first page of results. You didn't even really try, did you?

So what does his clarification mean, exactly? “It is a slight misquote, because I was using the term in the more general sense of ESP – that is, I was not talking about remote viewing per se, but rather Ganzfeld, etc as well. I think that they do meet the usual standards for a normal claim, but are not convincing enough for an extraordinary claim.”

 

[leon_heller]

Just guessing, but it might be the case that results have been obtained at, say, the 5% significance level. That might be acceptable for some investigations, but the claims for remote viewing are so incredible that a much higher significance level is required.

 

[Rodney]

Just guessing, but it might be the case that results have been obtained at, say, the 5% significance level. That might be acceptable for some investigations, but the claims for remote viewing are so incredible that a much higher significance level is required.

Who decides what is an incredible claim?

 

[leon_heller]

It should be the experimenter, he's the individual who sets the significance level. Other people can decide whether it was appropriate, of course, when evaluating the study. Basically, it's a case of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

 

[Alan]

The standard of evidence for a claim that I ate KFC last week is much less than it would be for a claim that I can read minds. We are not operating from a state of total ignorance, you see. The evidence for reading minds would need to counteract all that shows I can't read minds.

That is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A claim is extraordinary based on our current knowledge.

 

[Steve001]

A simple google search of the bolded part of the quote led me to this: Dr. Richard Wiseman on remote viewing - a clarification. It took me about eight seconds. It was the eighth result on the first page of results. You didn't even really try, did you?

Yes, I know there is an explanation and I did a cursory search only, but I forgot how I found it the last time. So don't give me cr_p I'll throw it right back.
BTW thanks for the link

 

[Rodney]

A claim is extraordinary based on our current knowledge.

So what standard of evidence do extraordinary claims have to meet? Saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" doesn't answer that question unless you can define specifically what that extraordinary evidence must be.

 

[Alan]

It depends on the specific claim. That is, the evidence that is against it and the evidence that is for it.

 

[Rodney]

It depends on the specific claim. That is, the evidence that is against it and the evidence that is for it.

So what standard of evidence has to be met for what Wiseman is talking about -- remote viewing, Ganzfeld experiments, and ESP in general?

 

[Alan]

It is on the weight of the scientific literature that these types of things are accepted or not accepted. If you are wanting a specific number (whether it's a p value, an effect size or a percentage of papers supporting a particular view), then I can't give it to you and I do not think it could be done.

If you're looking for something other than "evidence for that is stronger than the evidence against it", what do you suggest?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I emailed Richard Wiseman about this a year ago, after it came up in a thread here.
His reply-

hi there yes, i was just talking about the need for more replications under well controlled conditions.
re the remote viewing evidence, I was not referring to RV per se, but rather ESP in general (esp the ganzfeld studies) and I think it got mangled in the final piece
hope that helps
best
richard


Make of that what you will.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't fall into Rodney's trap; arguing over the correct level of statistical significance to use is a red herring.

As the quote from Richard Wiseman that SoapySam has provided states, parapsychologists need to come up with standardised and high quality protocols which repeatedly produce consistent results.

 

[Rodney]

Don't fall into Rodney's trap; arguing over the correct level of statistical significance to use is a red herring.

As the quote from Richard Wiseman that SoapySam has provided states, parapsychologists need to come up with standardised and high quality protocols which repeatedly produce consistent results.

Protocols are quite standardized for Ganzfeld experiments, but expecting consistent results ignores what we know about human performance. Athletic results vary dramatically from day to day.

 

[Femke]

Protocols are quite standardized for Ganzfeld experiments, but expecting consistent results ignores what we know about human performance. Athletic results vary dramatically from day to day.

That is where repetition comes in. An athlete might break off her first attempt because of a misstep, but in the number of tries she is allowed (decided beforehand) she will more often than not clear that high bar.
And if you follow a number of athletes a number of tournaments, you will find a more or less consistent result: that they can do what they claim.

Besides, it makes absolutely no sense to compare highly trained athletes who must achieve a result better than their competitors, to make-believe woosters who still have to produce one unambiguous result that scores better than chance.

Femke

 

[fls]

I've come to the conclusion that we should throw Wiseman under the bus for saying something so stupid.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Protocols are quite standardized for Ganzfeld experiments, but expecting consistent results ignores what we know about human performance. Athletic results vary dramatically from day to day.

So what?

Unless you're trying to discover something with an N = 1, individual performance is irrelevant.

 

[Rodney]

I've come to the conclusion that we should throw Wiseman under the bus for saying something so stupid.

Linda

It pains me to see disagreement among skeptics but -- as a point of information -- do you disagree with the notion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? In other words, if you believed that Ganzfeld and other paranormal claims had met the usual standards of evidence, would you accept those claims?

 

[ExMinister]

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science remote viewing is proven."

What I'd like to know is whether or not that statement is even true.