The Parapsychological Experimenter Effect

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Name a single, repeatable experiment that demonstrates the existence of psi. Not a handful of studies that fluked a statistically significant result but could not be replicated, a repeatable experiment.

If you can't do that, there's simply no basis for a partnership. You might as well ask for astronomers to work very closely with astrologers.

 

[Robin]

Please look at post #20 again.

Here it is in full:

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?

What part do you say I have misunderstood?

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

Your point being?

 

[VulcanWay]

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?

I did look it over and it is just filled with more horse before the cart style of theories - psi manipulates psi experiments...because psi exists.

Also, I cannot find anywhere else online that this paper exists. Not even a reference to it. It was not honestly peer-reviewed. In fact, many of the cited references point BACK TO the Journal of Parapsychology. So referencing other papers that have not been truly peer-reviewed as the basis for your own in the scientific community is not very convincing.

 

[Limbo]

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.

Parapsychologists are scientists. Although there aren't very many of them. I suppose I could have said parapsychologists and non-parapsychologists need to work very closely in a partnership. That could overcome the experimenter psi effect. If one skeptic and one non-skeptic partnered up to do an experiment, it's conceivable that their unconscious psi would cancel each other out...thus eliminating the experimenter psi effect.

 

[VulcanWay]

Parapsychologists are scientists. Although there aren't very many of them. I suppose I could have said parapsychologists and non-parapsychologists need to work very closely in a partnership. That could overcome the experimenter psi effect. If one skeptic and one non-skeptic partnered up to do an experiment, it's conceivable that their unconscious psi would cancel each other out...thus eliminating the experimenter psi effect.

Again, you are demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. And I have now tired of trying to show you where you're missing the point.

 

[Limbo]

What part do you say I have misunderstood?

(or at least possible)

 

[Limbo]

Again, you are demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. And I have now tired of trying to show you where you're missing the point.

That's fine. No one is holding a gun to your head here.

 

[Robin]

(or at least possible)

Again, there is a difference between feeling something is possible and deciding it is possible and acting accordingly.

 

[Robin]

Psi researchers may feel they have a good excuse as to why their hypothesis can't be tested.

But the bottom line is, if you don't have a hypothesis that can be tested - you don't have a hypothesis.

 

[Limbo]

Are you suggesting that the hypothesis that extroverts are better at psi than introverts, for example, can't be tested?

 

[fls]

Lets say an experimenter does some sort of a test for psi. Lets say it gets positive results. That kind of proof-oriented experiment might not say anything about WHOSE psi was involved: the experimenter or the subject or both.

Since all this hypothetical experiment is designed to do is detect psi period it might not really matter at that stage if the experimenter psi effect was a factor or not.

It also influences the proof-oriented experiement if it is used to explain why negative results are obtained. Anything which reduces the chance of finding a true-positive becomes problematic when it comes searching for a real effect.

Linda

 

[Robin]

Are you suggesting that the hypothesis that extroverts are better at psi than introverts, for example, can't be tested?

Not if you don't have a way of testing for psi in the first place. Can you suggest a method of testing that hypothesis?

I still don't get what you don't get about that.

 

[fls]

Seriously, I happen to accept the "proof" of psi, based on both personal experience and the evidence of parapsychological research. I have accepted it for a long, long time. So I am going to talk about it as a reality, because I accept it as such, and if someone doesn't like it that's tough.

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. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud."

Furthermore,

"It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data."

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

She is unfortunately wrong. For example, in any other field of study, if repeating the experiment over and over again returned mostly chance results, as happens with ganzfeld experiements, scientists in the field would not conclude that an effect was present. At the very least they would consider it questionable, rather than well-established. Experiments performed without control groups, as the bulk are, would be recognized as lower-quality evidence. Again, the extent to which an idea is considered established, in other fields of study, reflects the extent to which it is supported by higher-quality evidence. And that she and others dismiss the methodological concerns is why I think that parapsychologists are their own worst enemies. Ignoring our hard-won knowledge of how to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions means that for all they know, they are now proceding with process-based experiments on the basis of invalid conclusions.

I accept the current collection of data. I accept my group and solo paranormal experiences.

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?

This really is not fair. Those criticisms cannot be reasonably applied to me, nor to a number of other people who have seriously studied the subject and have the knowledge and experience to understand experimental design and analysis. Nor do they explain why the collection of data is persuasive only to those who already believe - a dramatic difference from any other field of scientific study.

Linda

 

[tyr_13]

Are you suggesting that the hypothesis that extroverts are better at psi than introverts, for example, can't be tested?

Yes. I would suggest that at least.

 

[fls]

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.

Skeptical scientists may not be interested in pursuing non-falsifiable ideas (if the experiment works it's because psi exists, if the experiment doesn't work it's because psi exists), since they don't allow you to build knowledge. I agree that parapsychologists would benefit from working with scientists, but are the parapsychologists really open to those benefits? The articles you have referenced so far seems to suggest that they are not, since they are basically dismissive of those methods used to avoid erroneous conclusions.

Linda

 

[fls]

Are you suggesting that the hypothesis that extroverts are better at psi than introverts, for example, can't be tested?

If the results won't affect your conclusion, then there's no point in testing it.

As an illustration, can you give me an example of a hypothesis about psi which has been well-established to be wrong?

For example, the hypothesis that Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs reduce mortality in ventricular arrhythmia associated with left ventricular dysfunction is well-established to be wrong.

Linda

 

[Dancing David]

Limbo, you saw what you think was macro-PK that does not mean it is macro-PK. How did you control for confounding variables?

Like the sliding coke can? (It rests on a very thin film of water and can slide easily)
Like the vibrating coke can? (Where very ine vibrations cause it to slide)
Like the coke can being moved by magnets?

I believe that you beleive you saw macro-PK, what was it that you saw and how do you know that it was PK? (Believe me I have seen some strange stuff, a dancing star was the strangest.)

 

[Hokulele]

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

Slot-machine engineers will be very surprised to learn this. Slot-machine owners will continue laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Ersby]

Oh, the experimenter effect. As far as I can tell, it’s a purely post hoc thing – only used as an explanation after results have been collated. There’ve been several cases (two large scale examples recently: Wiseman, Schiltz, Radin, Watt (was this 2006? Or 2007? I don’t remember) and Smith, Savva 2008) which were set up to specifically look for this effect, but found nothing, while other experiments have found the effect. So you see, sometimes it’s there, sometimes not.

The experimenter effect can be somewhat explained by pro-psi researchers writing up there results in the most favourable way. A good example is York (1976) who used two ways to measure the results – one scored statistically significantly, and the other didn’t. York wrote it up as if only the significant measure had been used, but when Hyman read a preliminary version of the paper, he saw that the other measure had been the primary measure (Hyman, JoP 49, 1985). There are other examples too.

Kennedy’s paper, written in 1976, uses data from before Honorton put into place the policy at the Parapsychological Association of publishing all results, both good and bad. The problem with this era of parapsychology is also Rhine’s habit of not naming and shaming fraudsters, so there’s no way of knowing how “clean” the data is in Kennedy’s paper (additionally, he mentions the findings of Soal in one example).

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.

So nothing we can say will ever convince you that parapsychology has not adequately demonstrated that psi can be measured in a laboratory setting?

 

[Limbo]

So you see, sometimes it’s there, sometimes not.

That's exactly what I would expect. Elusive.

"If psi is real, then it is plausible, indeed likely, that the experimental participants are not the only source of psi in a successful parapsychology experiment. The experimenter may also exert a psi influence over the data. Given that apparently ‘psi-conducive’ experimenters typically tend to believe that psi exists, and are highly motivated to obtain findings in support of psi (often more so than their research participants) then one might argue that the experimenters are potentially a more significant source of psi than the participants." (Smith, 2003, p. 79)

[...]

"From a methodological perspective, whatever the purported mechanism(s) of this effect of the experimenter upon the data, it does raise potential problems for skeptical researchers who wish to attempt to replicate psi experiments. This is because it suggests that such researchers, especially if they act as the experimenter who comes into contact with research participants, are less likely to obtain positive findings even if the psi effect is real." (p. 82)

So nothing we can say will ever convince you that parapsychology has not adequately demonstrated that psi can be measured in a laboratory setting?

Adequate for who? Skeptics and pseudo-skeptics? Everyone? People who have experienced psi themselves?