The Rosenheim Case

[blutoski]

"Handful of events" and "not replicable"? How on eart do you know all that? What are your refereces?

It is a mainstay of paranormalists that paranormal events are not replicable. Reason: the ghost cannot be controlled.

Well, there is no evidence without a video and video is no evidence?

A bit of semantics. Everything is evidence, but skeptics rank evidence into reliability brackets. Anecdotes are very weak evidence, because we know that memory is extremely fallible. Recording events on video is better, because it doesn't depend on memory, but is not perfect, because video can be manipulated. I saw a guy survive a nuclear blast on video last night by hiding in a refridgerator, and I'm pretty sure it didn't really happen.

Why is it not possible that an anomaly could be evidence of psi? Do you not understand that your principles are not falsifiable?

What, philosophy now? Principles are not supposed to be falsifiable: only hypotheses are. The skeptical principle is to weigh evidence presented. The hypothesis is that the evidence presented may be a mix of bad memory and hoaxing. Things we see in the world around us today all the time.

This is falsifiable by providing evidence that these possibilities have to be rejected. That would require a controlled environment and skeptical investigator to prepare proper tests. These were absent - the investigation was not performing any sort of test.

 

[fls]

"Handful of events" and "not replicable"? How on eart do you know all that? What are your refereces?

I'm going by the stuff you posted earlier. It said (from what I could glean from the almost incomprehensible translation ) that the incidents didn't occur when the investigators were observing and only one was caught on tape.

Well, there is no evidence without a video and video is no evidence?

Evidence should be recorded in a reliable manner. If that includes video, there should be some way of knowing that what is seen on video could not have occurred due to normal methods. For example, a video image would not capture the presence of a fine line attached to the picture.

Why is it not possible that an anomaly could be evidence of psi? Do you not understand that your principles are not falsifiable?

I didn't say that an anomaly could not be evidence of psi. I said that an anomaly wasn't necessarily evidence of psi, since prior anomalies have been due to non-psi.

It seems that you have not understood the technical details. There was only evidence of mechanical effects.

That's quite possible, since the translations have been almost incomprehensible. I didn't understand why you would claim that the paper must have been moved when the video you referred to clearly showed the pen moving.

Linda

 

[Lusikka]

It is a mainstay of paranormalists that paranormal events are not replicable. Reason: the ghost cannot be controlled.

Your references?

 

[Lusikka]

I don't rely on skeptical literature in any great sense. I tend to go with "mainstream science". When the psyresearchers have convinced its members, I may give some credence to the field.

In my opinion the situation is not in balance. You are hanging around here and know skeptical world view very well. As far as I know, mainstream scientists don't criticize skeptical literature and don't find any errors there. That is because they don't know parapsychology. Parapsychological papers are most often very tedious reading with their innumerable details and discussions of different possibilities. Parapsychology is a science and its results are not as simple as skeptical truths. It requires a long time and much effort to recognize the whole contents of parapsychology.

Mainstream scientists don't make enough difference between parapsychology and New Age. Then there is the "psychical research" found in Internet and that is pure New Age and belief, with very poor scientific base.

Current parapsychology has serious weaknesses. I have been in personal e-mail contact with several parapsychologists and I am not very popular among them because I have criticized them heavily. They have a tendency not to answer unpleasant questions, but that is very common also among skeptics.

 

[Cuddles]

In my opinion the situation is not in balance.

Of course it isn't. It never can be. The evidence says that "psi", whichever of the thousands of different claims about what it is you happen to believe in, does not exist. There is no way for the situation to be balanced without a massive amount of evidence suddenly turning up to support the existence of psi.

The take-away learning from Project Alpha is that paranormal investigations require the assistance of elite magicians (Randi refers to them as "magicians' magicians"), and that investigations that exclude such participants are not very reliable. I don't see anything in McClenon's critique (of one book) that refutes this conclusion.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't agree with this. It's the same nonsense Randi always brings up. Magicians are completely unecessary. Any competent scientists should be able to design a controlled, blinded experiment, or failing that at least conduct a sensible investigation. The fact that many paranormal investigators are utterly incompetent does not mean magicians are needed, it just means real scientists are needed instead of the incompetent, and often dishonest, believers who tend to gravitate to the field.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Of course it isn't. It never can be. The evidence says that "psi", whichever of the thousands of different claims about what it is you happen to believe in, does not exist. There is no way for the situation to be balanced without a massive amount of evidence suddenly turning up to support the existence of psi.



While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't agree with this. It's the same nonsense Randi always brings up. Magicians are completely unecessary. Any competent scientists should be able to design a controlled, blinded experiment, or failing that at least conduct a sensible investigation. The fact that many paranormal investigators are utterly incompetent does not mean magicians are needed, it just means real scientists are needed instead of the incompetent, and often dishonest, believers who tend to gravitate to the field.

So how did David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear?

 

[Kuko 4000]

Everything is evidence, but skeptics rank evidence into reliability brackets.

Going by my Messenger discussions with Lusikka, this is something he doesn't seem to fully grasp. One approach could be to provide examples of other weird things (maybe from another scene) that he would logically have to believe in as well if his evidence criteria is as low as it seems to be.

How about homeopathy, or is that too much evidence, I mean Prince Charles swears to it and there have been numerous positive studies published in Homeopathy.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Magicians are completely unecessary. Any competent scientists should be able to design a controlled, blinded experiment, or failing that at least conduct a sensible investigation. The fact that many paranormal investigators are utterly incompetent does not mean magicians are needed, it just means real scientists are needed instead of the incompetent, and often dishonest, believers who tend to gravitate to the field.

I symphatize with your point. However, I think that a proper magician could save a lot of time and effort from the proper scientists when dealing with paranormal research and testing, an area where magic tricks are the main business, simply because the magicians know immediately where to look.

 

[fls]

Going by my Messenger discussions with Lusikka, this is something he doesn't seem to fully grasp. One approach could be to provide examples of other weird things (maybe from another scene) that he would logically have to believe in as well if his evidence criteria is as low as it seems to be.

How about homeopathy, or is that too much evidence, I mean Prince Charles swears to it and there have been numerous positive studies published in Homeopathy.

I think it needs to be something that Lusikka would reject. I suspect that he would buy into the conspiracy theory that homeopathy is not rejected on the basis of the weakness of the evidence, but rather due to suppression by the Medical-Industrial Complex, like the rest of the alt-med apologists.

I think it needs to be a trick that fooled people for a while and then was revealed for what it was. The Alpha Project would satisfy that requirement (something that was not contradicted by any of the accounts - believer or non), but you saw how well he considered that bit of information.

Maybe a deconstruction of the various techniques used in Kirlian photography? Or various investigations by Joe Nickell of miraculous events or strange creatures that turned out to have quite mundane explanations?

Linda

 

[Cuddles]

So how did David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear?

He didn't. Which is pretty much the point. A well designed experiment will measure what actually happens, not what it may appear happens, and should control for deliberate misdirection as well as unconscious biases.

I have no idea what David Copperfield did, but I can still come up with several different ways to measure whether the Statue of Liberty is still there or not. A magician may be better at working out how the trick was done, but anyone should be able to work out whether it was real or just a trick.

I symphatize with your point. However, I think that a proper magician could save a lot of time and effort from the proper scientists when dealing with paranormal research and testing, an area where magic tricks are the main business, simply because the magicians know immediately where to look.

A magician's knowledge could certainly be useful for knowing what kind of tricks could be used and how to spot them, but that is a long way from saying that a magician must be involved or the experiment will fail because all scientists are incompetent idiots, which seems to be Randi's view on the matter. A professional racing driver may be able to get you from A to B faster than some random, but that does not mean the professional is required, and depending on the circumstances it may not help at all.

Look at Blutoski's post:

The take-away learning from Project Alpha is that paranormal investigations require the assistance of elite magicians

This just isn't the case. The actual take-away learning from Project Alpha is that it is possible to trick incompetent investigators who already believe in the paranormal and are just looking for confirmation. That shouldn't be news to anyone.

In fact, I'd say that Project Alpha itself, or at least the conclusions drawn from it, demonstrate perfectly how magicians can fail at science. For Randi to draw any conclusion, he would have needed a control group of paranormal investigators who did have a magician helping them, as well as independent replication of the project. Without that, he is just as guilty of starting off with his conclusion and trying to support it with poor experiments as the victims of the project were. Perhaps the conclusion should not be that scientists require magicians, but that magicians require scientists. Of course, I'll have to perform some more experiments to confirm this...

 

[Kuko 4000]

A magician's knowledge could certainly be useful for knowing what kind of tricks could be used and how to spot them, but that is a long way from saying that a magician must be involved or the experiment will fail because all scientists are incompetent idiots, which seems to be Randi's view on the matter.

I agree on what you say, but is this really Randi's view? That all scientist are incompetent idiots in relation to designing a test for paranormal? I doubt that's the case, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

The actual take-away learning from Project Alpha is that it is possible to trick incompetent investigators who already believe in the paranormal and are just looking for confirmation. That shouldn't be news to anyone.

I've noticed that people (and much of the media) in general do not seem to understand that the quality of "scientific" testing may vary drastically and that this is the reason why every result of such tests should not be considered equal. It shouldn't be news to anyone, but people just don't have a good understanding of the scientific method, and / or science in general. This thread is actually a pretty good example of that.

 

[blutoski]

Your references?

I would consider it self-evident.

I'll pose the converse question: are you saying that in your opinion, investigators can routinely produce ghost activity on command?

In terms of references, of course I can cite people who share my view. ie: paranormal investigators who have published investigation protocols. Nevertheless, I'd like to stage a question before I waste time locating specific examples: whom do you consider to be an acceptable authority on paranormal investigation? Would articles from Proceedings from the SPR suffice?

 

[blutoski]

In my opinion the situation is not in balance. You are hanging around here and know skeptical world view very well. As far as I know, mainstream scientists don't criticize skeptical literature and don't find any errors there. That is because they don't know parapsychology. Parapsychological papers are most often very tedious reading with their innumerable details and discussions of different possibilities. Parapsychology is a science and its results are not as simple as skeptical truths. It requires a long time and much effort to recognize the whole contents of parapsychology.

With all due respect, that's vague to the point where I have no idea what it's supposed to mean. 'contents of parapsychology'?

Mainstream scientists don't make enough difference between parapsychology and New Age. Then there is the "psychical research" found in Internet and that is pure New Age and belief, with very poor scientific base.

Current parapsychology has serious weaknesses. I have been in personal e-mail contact with several parapsychologists and I am not very popular among them because I have criticized them heavily. They have a tendency not to answer unpleasant questions, but that is very common also among skeptics.

At this point, we're talking about generalizations, and I think I agree that at the layperson level, it's a total mess in both camps. Terrible, amateurish, unproductive, investigation by both believers and skeptics is widespread.

However, at the level where the players are more experienced, I don't feel there's really a debunking camp per se. I find my skeptical peers as open-minded and reasonably well-read about the material. To the point where I'd say that skeptics are probably better read on the history of paranormal investigation in particular than are the active paranormal investigators. In fact: the skeptical attitude is that history suggests people can be deceived or self-deceived simply does not seem to be shared by most paranormal investigators. Or, in some cases, they consider themselves immune to being human.

I find the biggest problem is more of metaphysics. There are two types of professional-level paranormalists: the ones who design experiments to produce positive results and the ones who design experiments to test hypotheses. The latter are rare, and many have left the field having concluded that the hypotheses are unfounded.

 

[blutoski]

I agree on what you say, but is this really Randi's view? That all scientist are incompetent idiots in relation to designing a test for paranormal? I doubt that's the case, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Randi would be the best person to ask about this, but my impression is that he does firmly believe that a paranormal investigation without magicians' assistance should be considered weak evidence for or against its conclusion.

It's not about intelligence: it's about scope of competence. As a microbiologist, I am acutely aware that I am not competent to conduct investigations outside my specialized field, even within biology. Why am I suddenly good at paranormal investigation - a completely unrelated field - when the history of this type of investigation is rife with deception?

I've noticed that people (and much of the media) in general do not seem to understand that the quality of "scientific" testing may vary drastically and that this is the reason why every result of such tests should not be considered equal. It shouldn't be news to anyone, but people just don't have a good understanding of the scientific method, and / or science in general. This thread is actually a pretty good example of that.

Tragically true of everything under the sun. I would add the question: are there any paranormal organizations dedicated to educating the public about the scientific method? (answer: no); Related question: are there skeptical organizations dedicated to educating the public about the scientific method? (answer: most) Something to consider when pointing fingers or assessing where the root of the problem lies.

 

[Lusikka]

I'll pose the converse question: are you saying that in your opinion, investigators can routinely produce ghost activity on command?

No, I don't say so. But there are some details that must be taken in consideration here. For the first there are possible hauntings and there are possible poltergeist phenomena. This has been confirmed by Gauld and Cornell, using cluster analysis. But this is not a sharp dichotomy and the phenomena are overlapping rather much.

Hauntigs are very uncontrollable. Repeatability is poor, because there can be years between single phenomena. The Rosenheim case is a typical poltergeist case and it is not wise to assume that there have been ghosts in action. In active poltergeist cases there is good repeatability. There can be tens of similar phenomena happening, and William Roll did even some experimentation in Miami.

Although the single poltergeist phenomena do not happen on command, they can be studied rather well. Think about astronomy, you cannot command a meteorite to come any time you wish or command a star to explode as a supernova or take a star in the laboratory. Nevertheless skeptics don't say astronomy is not a science.

In terms of references, of course I can cite people who share my view. ie: paranormal investigators who have published investigation protocols. Nevertheless, I'd like to stage a question before I waste time locating specific examples: whom do you consider to be an acceptable authority on paranormal investigation? Would articles from Proceedings from the SPR suffice?

I don't like this authority talk at all. Parapsychologists have different backgrounds and they are differing in their opinions. Every parapsychologist has a certain piece to put in the puzzle but there are not single authorities. Susan Blackmore, for example, seems not to have very good grasp of the physical world and physical phenomena but she is strong in psychology.

 

[blutoski]

He didn't. Which is pretty much the point. A well designed experiment will measure what actually happens, not what it may appear happens, and should control for deliberate misdirection as well as unconscious biases.

I have no idea what David Copperfield did, but I can still come up with several different ways to measure whether the Statue of Liberty is still there or not. A magician may be better at working out how the trick was done, but anyone should be able to work out whether it was real or just a trick.



A magician's knowledge could certainly be useful for knowing what kind of tricks could be used and how to spot them, but that is a long way from saying that a magician must be involved or the experiment will fail because all scientists are incompetent idiots, which seems to be Randi's view on the matter. A professional racing driver may be able to get you from A to B faster than some random, but that does not mean the professional is required, and depending on the circumstances it may not help at all.

Look at Blutoski's post:

This just isn't the case. The actual take-away learning from Project Alpha is that it is possible to trick incompetent investigators who already believe in the paranormal and are just looking for confirmation. That shouldn't be news to anyone.

Shouldn't be. But it was tragic news to the paranormalists involved. And their funder.

In fact, I'd say that Project Alpha itself, or at least the conclusions drawn from it, demonstrate perfectly how magicians can fail at science. For Randi to draw any conclusion, he would have needed a control group of paranormal investigators who did have a magician helping them, as well as independent replication of the project.

Indirectly, there are two control comparisons. The experimental protocols were run without the magician-recommended controls and the subjects performed as stars. When the magician-recommended controls were enacted, the results disappeared.

In medicine, we call this a cross-over or longitudinal study, and it is a valid - if weakly convincing - protocol. The strength of a cross-over or longitudinal study is enhanced by larger numbers and independent replication. But even a one-off is useful.

Other examples are all these paranormalists who seem to perform spectacularly, but fail in the presence of magicians who have had input, or even laypersons who have adopted simple precautions previously drawn up by magicians. eg: Uri Gellar's failure on the Tonight Show. Generally speaking, paranormalists observe this, but call it the shyness effect instead of just admitting that protocols designed to reduce cheating may reduce effects by... reducing cheating.

Without that, he is just as guilty of starting off with his conclusion and trying to support it with poor experiments as the victims of the project were. Perhaps the conclusion should not be that scientists require magicians, but that magicians require scientists. Of course, I'll have to perform some more experiments to confirm this...

Not really. It's more an hypothesis: prediction that tightening controls reduces positive effects in general. In the realm of medical research, this hypothesis is tested through literature review through a funnel graph. Project Alpha provides one more pair of datapoints that suggest that increased controls decrease results.

 

[Cuddles]

I agree on what you say, but is this really Randi's view? That all scientist are incompetent idiots in relation to designing a test for paranormal? I doubt that's the case, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I may have been exaggerating a little there, but he certainly believes something to similar to how Blutoski puts it:

Randi would be the best person to ask about this, but my impression is that he does firmly believe that a paranormal investigation without magicians' assistance should be considered weak evidence for or against its conclusion.

Indirectly, there are two control comparisons. The experimental protocols were run without the magician-recommended controls and the subjects performed as stars. When the magician-recommended controls were enacted, the results disappeared.

In medicine, we call this a cross-over or longitudinal study, and it is a valid - if weakly convincing - protocol. The strength of a cross-over or longitudinal study is enhanced by larger numbers and independent replication. But even a one-off is useful.

It can certainly be useful, but you have to be very careful about what those indirect controls actually control for. As you say yourself (bolding mine):

Other examples are all these paranormalists who seem to perform spectacularly, but fail in the presence of magicians who have had input, or even laypersons who have adopted simple precautions previously drawn up by magicians. eg: Uri Gellar's failure on the Tonight Show. Generally speaking, paranormalists observe this, but call it the shyness effect instead of just admitting that protocols designed to reduce cheating may reduce effects by... reducing cheating.

It's not a magician that's important. It's someone unbiased with some knowledge of setting experiments. Project Alpha is certainly evidence that the latter is important, but it is not evidence that that someone must be a magician, or be in any way influenced or trained by a magician.

Not really. It's more an hypothesis: prediction that tightening controls reduces positive effects in general. In the realm of medical research, this hypothesis is tested through literature review through a funnel graph. Project Alpha provides one more pair of datapoints that suggest that increased controls decrease results.

This is exactly what I am saying. Notice that nowhere in this paragraph does the word "magician" appear. Project Alpha is yet more evidence that scientific experiments need to be conducted in an unbiased manner with proper controls. No surprise there, although as you and Kuko point out, apparently many people are surprised by this so it's always nice to have more data supporting it. Extending that, as Randi and others do, to say that the controls must have the input from a magician or be invalid is completely unsupported, and appears to be based on nothing more than Randi's own bias.

Edit: In fact, I'd say that the very existence of people like Gellar, Callahan and so on is very good evidence that simply being a magician is no barrier to believing in woo and being incompetent at investigation. Sure, a magician could be a useful person to discuss controls with, but they could also be utterly useless, just as a scientist or layperson could be perfectly good at designing an experiment, but could also be completely useless.

What Randi is essentially doing is refuting an argument from authority, this experiment was done by scientists therefore it must be good. However, instead of removing the fallacy and replacing with it with the proper logic, that the experiment stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is running it, he simply replaces the authority with his prefered authority. We go from being told to accept what the scientist says to being told to accept what the magician says, whereas what we should be told is to accept what the experiment says and ignore all the people involved.

 

[Kuko 4000]

What Randi is essentially doing is refuting an argument from authority, this experiment was done by scientists therefore it must be good. However, instead of removing the fallacy and replacing with it with the proper logic, that the experiment stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is running it, he simply replaces the authority with his prefered authority. We go from being told to accept what the scientist says to being told to accept what the magician says, whereas what we should be told is to accept what the experiment says and ignore all the people involved.

That doesn't quite fit the picture of Randi that I know (well, through internet anyways). I don't think his position is quite as strict as you still put it. I will look into it.

 

[blutoski]

(below refers to my statement referred to my comment that even laypersons using protocols originally recommended by magicians appear to influence outcomes)

It's not a magician that's important. It's someone unbiased with some knowledge of setting experiments. Project Alpha is certainly evidence that the latter is important, but it is not evidence that that someone must be a magician, or be in any way influenced or trained by a magician.

Well, it shows that this situation was dramatically altered by protocols established by a professional magician, and is at least one datapoint to consider when evaluating the credibility of that hypothesis.

The reason Randi had the hypothesis to test in the first place, is that there are other examples from a century and a half of investigation that seemed to be very dependent on magicians' involvement.

Even a layperson like myself who is advancing protocols for testing the paranormal cannot draw on my scientific background, but has to examine the body of work established by paranormal investigators in the past. With very few exceptions, the field's succesful techniques were developed by magicians.

This is exactly what I am saying. Notice that nowhere in this paragraph does the word "magician" appear. Project Alpha is yet more evidence that scientific experiments need to be conducted in an unbiased manner with proper controls. No surprise there, although as you and Kuko point out, apparently many people are surprised by this so it's always nice to have more data supporting it. Extending that, as Randi and others do, to say that the controls must have the input from a magician or be invalid is completely unsupported, and appears to be based on nothing more than Randi's own bias.

You say bias; I say experience.

I believe that the hypothesis is far from 'completely unsupported'.

Edit: In fact, I'd say that the very existence of people like Gellar, Callahan and so on is very good evidence that simply being a magician is no barrier to believing in woo and being incompetent at investigation. Sure, a magician could be a useful person to discuss controls with, but they could also be utterly useless, just as a scientist or layperson could be perfectly good at designing an experiment, but could also be completely useless.

I would argue that the existence of Gellar and his equivalent are actually a stronger argument that magicians would be required. "It takes a thief," as they say.

Specifically, the presence of a magician as test subject dramatically increases the need for a magician as observer.




My impression is that you're arguing about absolute proof, which is not part of any scientific test that I'm aware of. I'm arguing from practicality and probability. By analogy, you don't absolutely need a brain surgeon to perform your brain surgery; but engaging a well-read amateur (in the literal sense of the word) is less likely to produce satisfactory results.

What Randi is essentially doing is refuting an argument from authority, this experiment was done by scientists therefore it must be good. However, instead of removing the fallacy and replacing with it with the proper logic, that the experiment stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who is running it, he simply replaces the authority with his prefered authority. We go from being told to accept what the scientist says to being told to accept what the magician says, whereas what we should be told is to accept what the experiment says and ignore all the people involved.

(sigh) argument from authority is not a logical fallacy. (you're thinking of argument from questionable authority)

Identification of who is - and is not - a questionable authority is an essential skill for skeptics.

Randi has specifically addressed this accusation in essays and letters to editors over the past - oh - forty years. At any time, he specifically lists whom he believes to be an acceptable magician for these tasks, and I believe he has even recently removed himself from this list due to retirement.

Specifically, James Randi does not just advocate the participation of any old magician - he specifically identifies a qualified subset called "magicians' magicians." Many of these are not people who have stage acts. They are the people who design and build acts for other magicians. Their expertise is the intersection between the psychology of deception and self-deception, the tricks accumulated through history, and the engineering experience to recognize what kind of equipment could be employed, much of which may be unavailable to a layperson or even many professional magicians.

Magic as a profession is at somewhat of a disadvantage in that there is no equivalent of the Bar or the College of Physicians & Surgeons. On the other hand, these professions are also self-defining and it's appropriate to listen to the Magic Circle or other established magic community to see which ones are the elites, and James Randi has often forwarded a short-list of his own for vetting. There are rarely more than five people on these lists.

 

[Lusikka]

[Concerning the Project Alpha:]
You mean there's another version where the researchers WEREN'T fooled, but uncovered REAL evidence of the paranormal when confronted with magicians who were doing parlor tricks?

A silly question.