The Parapsychological Experimenter Effect

[VulcanWay]

I happen to agree with Jessica Utts when she says:

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established.

(Bolding Limbo's)

Actually, using the standards applied to any other area of science, the ability to replicate the findings is required.

At least according to Wikipedia on Utts:

In 1995, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) appointed a panel consisting primarily of Utts and Dr. Ray Hyman to evaluate a project investigating remote viewing for espionage applications, the Stargate Project, which was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, and carried out initially by Stanford Research Institute and subsequently by SAIC.
The two reports opposed each other, with the Utts' report saying "a small to medium psychic functioning was being exhibited" and that "future research should focus understanding how this phenomena works, and how to make it as useful as possible. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition in which the answer is not known until a future time, appears to work quite well".[1] Hyman's report stated that Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, "especially precognition, is premature and that present findings have yet to be independently replicated".[2] Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued. Jessica Utts also co-authored papers with Edwin May, who took over Stargate in 1985.[3]

According to this, the only other experimenter to research alongside her came to a very different conclusion than hers and, as he points out, her findings were not independently replicated.

So, her findings absolutely were NOT to the same level as required by any other scientific field. And for her to state that "psychic functioning has been well established" is simply not true. Especially just based on her findings. And her statement about precognition is ludicrous for a scientist in her position to say.

People who don't accept the current collection of data haven't looked at it closely enough, or have listened to too many debunkers, or have strong personal/ideological/psychological aversions toward the subject...which can be as strong as a phobia. But anyway, lets not de-rail this thread ok?

Maybe people who accept the current "collection" of data are seeing what they want to see...

 

[Robin]

Good thought...but evidence seems to suggest that random number generators can be influenced by micro-PK.

Uh, no. There was a lab at Princeton that spent a quarter of a century trying to provide evidence for this hypothesis and they came up with nothing.

 

[Limbo]

Uh, no. There was a lab at Princeton that spent a quarter of a century trying to provide evidence for this hypothesis and they came up with nothing.

Literally "nothing", eh? All it takes is a tiny kernel of "something"

Since I have seen macro-PK with my own eyes (I don't expect you to believe that) I accept micro-PK and therefore I can't accept your statement.

 

[Limbo]

Maybe people who accept the current "collection" of data are seeing what they want to see...

And maybe the reverse is more true...skeptics are avoiding the current "collection" of data because they don't want to see.

 

[Robin]

Not if the experimenter psi effect can be detected in experiments.

Sorry but it seems to me that either researchers decide psi is real (or at least possible) and act accordingly, or they decide psi is not real and act accordingly. There are problems with both approaches, correct?

Both approaches are profoundly unscientific and completely unnecessary.

 

[VulcanWay]

Not if the experimenter psi effect can be detected in experiments.

They would need to show proof that psi, and nothing else, is causing the so-called effect. And if you can't prove that psi exists, how is this possible?

Sorry but it seems to me that either researchers decide psi is real (or at least possible) and act accordingly, or they decide psi is not real and act accordingly. There are problems with both approaches, correct?

Again, no. The job of a researcher is to form a hypothesis and test it. Results must be measurable, repeatable, and there must be a way to show that the hypothesis has failed. If the hypothesis fails the tests, they form another hypothesis based on their failure trying to make it better. If it passes the test, they then keep trying to disprove it. If they fail to be able to disprove the hypothesis, then it has scientific merit.

A researcher is supposed to be a non-biased party and act accordingly. If they have already picked their belief and are conducting their testing in that vein, they have failed as researchers.

The problem with the OP hypothesis is that it is not measurable, not repeatable in a controlled enviroment (what IS a controlled environment as far as the hypothesis is concerned?), and how can you know if it has failed if you have no way to measure or repeat the posited psi phenomenon?

 

[Jeff Corey]

... People who don't accept the current collection of data haven't looked at it closely enough, or have listened to too many debunkers, or have strong personal/ideological/psychological aversions toward the subject...which can be as strong as a phobia. But anyway, lets not de-rail this thread ok?

You left out the salient reason. They know more about doing experiments than you do.

 

[Limbo]

Both approaches are profoundly unscientific and completely unnecessary.

What...an experimenter can't feel that what he is trying to detect is possible to detect?

 

[Robin]

And maybe the reverse is more true...skeptics are avoiding the current "collection" of data because they don't want to see.

Please feel free to specify anything that skeptics are avoiding because they don't want to see.

 

[VulcanWay]

Literally "nothing", eh? All it takes is a tiny kernel of "something"

While this may be true from your anecdotal standpoint, it is not true by scientific standards.

Are you arguing science or beliefs? They are not one in the same.

 

[Robin]

What...an experimenter can't feel that what he is trying to detect is possible to detect?

Er.. you didn't say they should feel it is possible. You said they should decide that it is real. There is a difference.

Experimenters should never decide in advance that the effect they are studying is real or not real and they should never, ever act on the basis of either assumption - which is what you were suggesting.

 

[Limbo]

Er.. you didn't say they should feel it is possible. You said they should decide that it is real. There is a difference.

Please look at post #20 again.

Experimenters should never decide in advance that the effect they are studying is real or not real and they should never, ever act on the basis of either assumption - which is what you were suggesting.

There's lots of thing people shouldn't do.

 

[Limbo]

Please feel free to specify anything that skeptics are avoiding because they don't want to see.

Ok. Maybe we could start with how many skeptics have read the paper I linked to in post #6. I asked VulcanWay if he read it but he didn't answer. Perhaps he avoided it?

If a skeptic does avoid something because they don't want to see, are they likely to admit it? Are they likely to point it out?

 

[Robin]

Literally "nothing", eh? All it takes is a tiny kernel of "something"

It takes more than a tiny kernel of "something" to be called evidence. PEAR didn't even come up with a tiny kernel of "something". They came up with literally nothing.

Since I have seen macro-PK with my own eyes (I don't expect you to believe that) I accept micro-PK and therefore I can't accept your statement.

I have seen a woman levitate with my own eyes, I have seen a man guess the card that I picked randomly from a pack and I have seen a rabbit being pulled from a hat that was previously shown to be empty.

 

[VulcanWay]

There's lots of thing people shouldn't do.

If any researcher does something they "shouldn't do" when conducting an experiment, their results are useless.

I get from your posts that you believe in psi. That's groovy. I also get that you keep showing over and over again with each statement that you actually don't care about the science behind actually researching it. That's fine too.

Just don't tell a bunch of skeptics that scientists could prove that psi exists if only they lower their standards of evidence and ignore the methods that have gotten science this far. It's just not going to fly.

 

[Limbo]

Experimenters should never decide in advance that the effect they are studying is real or not real and they should never, ever act on the basis of either assumption - which is what you were suggesting.

And another thing. When it comes to process-oriented studies, such as the one in the excerpt in my OP:

"Suppose, for example, that a researcher wanted to test the hypothesis that extroverts were better at psi than introverts..."

How is a researcher going to test that hypothesis without acting on the premise that psi is real or likely? I mean, I can't picture a scientist as skeptical as Randi wanting to test such a hypothesis. They would likely dismiss it, right?

 

[Limbo]

Just don't tell a bunch of skeptics that scientists could prove that psi exists if only they lower their standards of evidence and ignore the methods that have gotten science this far. It's just not going to fly.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that cooperation is needed. Skeptical scientists need to work with parapsychologists very closely. There needs to be a partnership.

 

[Robin]

Ok. Maybe we could start with how many skeptics have read the paper I linked to in post #6. I asked VulcanWay if he read it but he didn't answer. Perhaps he avoided it?

If a skeptic does avoid something because they don't want to see, are they likely to admit it? Are they likely to point it out?

What exactly is there in this paper that a skeptic wouldn't want to see? We are all very familiar with the claim of the psi experimental effect.

 

[Robin]

And another thing. When it comes to process-oriented studies, such as the one in the excerpt in my OP:

"Suppose, for example, that a researcher wanted to test the hypothesis that extroverts were better at psi than introverts..."

How is a researcher going to test that hypothesis without acting on the premise that psi is real or likely? I mean, I can't picture a scientist as skeptical as Randi wanting to test such a hypothesis. They would likely dismiss it, right?

I don't get what you don't get about this. How can they ask this sort of question if they have no reliable way of detecting psi at all?

If I hypothesised that there was a new type of radiation called yobba rays, could I test whether yobba rays could pass through lead if I had no way of detecting yobba rays in the first place?

If I went ahead and performed the test on the basis that yobba rays actually existed, what would I be testing?

 

[VulcanWay]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that cooperation is needed. Skeptical scientists need to work with parapsychologists very closely. There needs to be a partnership.

Yet again, NO they don't. Scientific experimentation is needed. Not feelings or beliefs.

Though I do find it interesting that you put parapsychologists (rightfully) in a category other than scientists.