Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-26-2016, 06:16 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
If the takeaway from reviewing the studies is that there is no evidence for ESP then my purpose for posting them it is not without value in either case.
The problem isn't that you gave the link but that you quoted Radin's words:
Quote:
Other commonly repeated critiques about psi research, such as “these phenomena are impossible,” “there’s no valid scientific evidence,” or “the results are all due to fraud,” have been soundly rejected for many decades. Informed debates today are based on discussions of theoretical models, the empirical evidence, and interpretation of that evidence.
His own site contains convincing evidence that's nonsense. Nothing in your post indicated that you disagreed. Or even that you had read any of the papers, as you said we should. You biased your evidence. You can't pretend otherwise.
  #52  
Old 04-26-2016, 06:38 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The problem isn't that you gave the link but that you quoted Radin's words:


His own site contains convincing evidence that's nonsense. Nothing in your post indicated that you disagreed. Or even that you had read any of the papers, as you said we should. You biased your evidence. You can't pretend otherwise.
That's the text at the top of the page that I linked to. It provided a quick background of his point of view as an indication of what is to be found on the site. Quoting the text of my link isn't necessarily a personal endorsement of what it says.

This is GQ - opinions don't matter. That includes arguments both for and against the subject. It's very easy to say 'that's a bunch of bunk' or "it's true, I know it is!' but that just doesn't mean anything. So I provided a link to someone who has done considerable work on the subject, is a qualified scientist, and has applied the scientific method to experiments and research instead of just waving a magic wand and blinking his eyes. I maintain that his research on the subject is far more meaningful to this discussion than any of the personal opinions expressed so far, pro or con.
  #53  
Old 04-26-2016, 06:47 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
He's apparently an intelligent dude, but his PhDs are unrelated to the research (I left out the scare quotes) he has done. The only critiques of his work by mainstream scientists show him to be a crackpot, actually, albeit a crackpot with some publications under his belt.
In fact, there are plenty of examples of legitimate scientists in one field latching upon and promoting crackpot ideas in others, from Linus Pauling to Fred Hoyle. Having a PhD does not indicate logical thought or grounded hypotheses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I'm not sure any field besides Psychology would be better for a PhD if interested in paranormal psychology.
Pretty much any field besides psychology, given that it barely qualifies as any kind of science and whose practitioners have latched onto one flaketastic "theory of mind" after another with zero objective evidence or means of falsification. If I were to look for an expert to evaluate proposed psionic powers I would look to a biophysicist or neuroscientist to explain which parts of the brain are responsible for the perported powers, why they are only observed in a tiny fraction of the population, and the physical mechanism by which thoughts are conveyed or surveilled, objects are lifted or heated, spoons are bent, et cetera. Any real physical action is the result of some application of force or transfer of energy and should therefore be measureable by instrumentation, especially if it is powerful enough to lift an object in a gravitational field or bend a spoon, and it should be possible to build instrumentation to detect changes in the thermodynamic state or electromagnetic field which are responsible for these actions.

Throwing out the, "We must consider all hypotheses equally" is implicitly arguing the validity of all hypotheses. But we know that all hypotheses aren't equal; we (rightly) tend to prefer those which operate according to physics and biology as we know them unless there is evidence to the contrary. We do this so we don't waste time and energy in tail-chasing exercises like watching spoon-bending demonstrations or looking for sasquatches despite a complete lack of physical evidence.

Stranger
  #54  
Old 04-26-2016, 06:55 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
This is GQ - opinions don't matter.
Right. So have you read the negative papers on that site or only those by Radin?
  #55  
Old 04-26-2016, 07:12 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Right. So have you read the negative papers on that site or only those by Radin?
So if someone posts a GQ asking a car repair question, and I link to a mechanic's web page who has done a bunch of those particular repairs, I need to have read everything he has done? Or would it suffice just to say "I don't know and I'm no expert, and I've never studied the subject, but this guy is pretty heavily involved in it. You might give his site a read?"

I actually have very little interest in this subject one way or the other. I posted because what I saw was a bunch of non-factual answers to a GQ question. In this forum it's every bit as irrelevant to speculate that something isn't true without knowledge of the subject as it is to speculate that it is true without knowledge of the subject. Simply being a skeptic doesn't make one a great GQ poster, and we would all be sitting here in the dark if everyone who doubted a theory would pan out after further study had the final word on the subject.

With regard to Radin, what I see in reviewing a lot of his work is that he seems to be the first to say that most "paranormal research" is bunk. And that most people who claim to have paranormal abilities are either on drugs or mentally ill. Despite this, he claims, there are still some interesting results that warrant more research. I'm pretty sure that is how actual science is supposed to work.

On the subject of precognition that someone mentioned upthread for example. he has published a study complete with instructions for how to reproduce it, and an offer to loan any equipment necessary to anyone with a legitimate interest in trying to replicate the results. Whether anyone agrees with his findings or not, all I was offering the OP is someone who has applied real science to the investigation of the subject of ESP, and opened it up to peer review, which I'm pretty sure nobody posting in the thread has done.
  #56  
Old 04-26-2016, 08:26 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Despite this, he claims, there are still some interesting results that warrant more research.
What are these "interesting results that warrant more research"?

When you link to another site or otherwise provide a reference, you are implicitly suggesting that the site or reference is interesting, pertinent to the topic at hand, and ostensibly credible. Providing a link and then saying, "I'm not taking a position supporting or denying..." is disingenuous at best, and suggesting that other posters should read it even though you haven't bothered even skim through it and form an opinion is a pointless exercise.

Stranger
  #57  
Old 04-26-2016, 08:39 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 73,183
So, you know how I said that the very existence of the studies would be taken as evidence by some? I wasn't expecting to get an object example so soon.
  #58  
Old 04-26-2016, 08:41 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Pretty much any field besides psychology, given that it barely qualifies as any kind of science and whose practitioners have latched onto one flaketastic "theory of mind" after another with zero objective evidence or means of falsification. If I were to look for an expert to evaluate proposed psionic powers I would look to a biophysicist or neuroscientist to explain which parts of the brain are responsible for the perported powers, why they are only observed in a tiny fraction of the population, and the physical mechanism by which thoughts are conveyed or surveilled, objects are lifted or heated, spoons are bent, et cetera.
I guess the fact that his second degree was in electrical engineering with honors in physics doesn't add any credibility. Or the fact that he worked successfully as a scientist for companies like AT&T and Bell. Obviously the poor guy just doesn't have a clue about real, messageboard science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Throwing out the, "We must consider all hypotheses equally" is implicitly arguing the validity of all hypotheses. But we know that all hypotheses aren't equal; we (rightly) tend to prefer those which operate according to physics and biology as we know them unless there is evidence to the contrary. We do this so we don't waste time and energy in tail-chasing exercises like watching spoon-bending demonstrations or looking for sasquatches despite a complete lack of physical evidence.
Stranger
I think that is pretty much what he is doing. As I said above he says one of the biggest obstacles to his work is that most people claiming to have such abilities are either frauds or lunatics. Despite this he has picked out a few nuggets of interesting statistical relevance and wants to study them further.

Honestly, between what I've read of his point of view and what I've read of yours here, he isn't the one I would first suspect of slowing down the advancement of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
What are these "interesting results that warrant more research"?
I just named one in my previous post. Precognition is one area he says he has seen greater than random chance results and has published the protocol and offered to loan the equipment to anyone who wants to try to replicate the results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
When you link to another site or otherwise provide a reference, you are implicitly suggesting that the site or reference is interesting, pertinent to the topic at hand, and ostensibly credible. Providing a link and then saying, "I'm not taking a position supporting or denying..." is disingenuous at best, and suggesting that other posters should read it even though you haven't bothered even skim through it and form an opinion is a pointless exercise.
My opinion is that most of the posts in this thread are "It is complete bullshit" answers without a speck of useful information or background about why they believe that to be the case. My opinion is also that someone like Radin has done a lot more work on the subject than I would ever be willing to do, and the things he thinks warrant further study might also be interesting to the OP.
  #59  
Old 04-26-2016, 08:49 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, you know how I said that the very existence of the studies would be taken as evidence by some? I wasn't expecting to get an object example so soon.
I made no such claim. I pointed the OP to someone who actually works on the subject as their main scientific interest since he would obviously have a lot of relevant information. From that I can see that information both debunks the poor studies that have been done on the subject and offers interesting reading about what credible and peer reviewed research exists, and what might be worth further study.
  #60  
Old 04-26-2016, 09:16 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I just named one in my previous post. Precognition is one area he says he has seen greater than random chance results and has published the protocol and offered to loan the equipment to anyone who wants to try to replicate the results.
That is not an example of "interesting results that warrant more research," it is an appeal to authority without in any way demonstrating that there are either credible mechanisms or convincing evidence of some kind of extrasensory, precognitive, or psychokinetic phenomena. Please point to an example of something, anything, that would illusrate a reason to consider a hypothesized phenomena which has no basis in current physics or neuroscience.

Stranger
  #61  
Old 04-26-2016, 09:51 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
That is not an example of "interesting results that warrant more research," it is an appeal to authority without in any way demonstrating that there are either credible mechanisms or convincing evidence of some kind of extrasensory, precognitive, or psychokinetic phenomena. Please point to an example of something, anything, that would illusrate a reason to consider a hypothesized phenomena which has no basis in current physics or neuroscience.

Stranger
Actually, no, it's just an example of a scientist publishing the results he saw in an experiment, documenting the protocol and inviting peers to replicate or fail to replicate the results, and several have replicated them. It happens every day in every area of science.

As to your theory about physics making such a theory an absolute impossibility, here's an excerpt from one interesting study about how you may be wrong and Radin's results could be possible from a pure physics/neuroscience perspective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/

Note that the authors do not take this to mean absolute proof of anything, but merely that it "warrants further study."
Quote:
Physical implausibility
It is not unexpected that psychologists are most skeptical of precognition (Wagner and Monnet, 1979). This is likely due to their knowledge of the many illusions and biases that influence perception and memory. However, putting these cognitive biases aside, this work is often dismissed out of hand under the assumption that precognition would require overturning basic and essential physical and psychological tenets. Schwarzkopf (2014) illustrates this position:

“… the seismic nature of these claims cannot be overstated: future events influencing the past breaks the second law of thermodynamics… It also completely undermines over a century of experimental research based on the assumption that causes precede effects”

Some clarification is needed here. From a physics perspective, except for several processes studied in high-energy physics (such as B meson decay), non-thermal physics is time-symmetric, perhaps allowing the possibility of precognitive effects. The formalism of time symmetric physics has been used, for example, in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory of radiation (Wheeler and Feynman, 1945) as well as in the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (Cramer, 1986), in which quantum wavefunction collapse is described as being due to an interaction between advanced waves (traveling backwards-in-time) and retarded waves (traveling forwards-in-time). With regards to precognition, Bierman (2008) has proposed that coherent conditions present in the human brain allow the fundamental time symmetry of physics to manifest itself.

Some quantum mechanical experiments can be interpreted as showing retrocausal influence where a decision at a future time seems to affect a past time. One example is Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment in which the way a photon travels through an interferometer (wave-like or particle-like) appears to be affected by a measurement decision made at a later time (Wheeler, 1984; Jacques et al., 2007). However, information transfer into the past (retrocausal signaling), as opposed to influence without information transfer, remains controversial since it has not yet been demonstrated experimentally. That said, there is no physical law which precludes retrocausal information transfer. There has been some effort put into experimental realization of retrocausal signaling. Cramer proposed that standard quantum mechanics allows the construction of a retrocausal signaling machine using quantum optical interferometry (Cramer, 2007). Though Cramer's work has reached an impasse (Cramer, 2014), an approach of using entangled systems for retrocausal communication may reveal a physical explanation for precognition. Lastly, it is worth noting, that ultimately whether any given theory can accommodate precognition or not is irrelevant; what is relevant are the data.

and concludes:

Quote:
We suggest that although the current state of evidence does not quite merit proponents' strong claim of having demonstrated replicable precognition in the laboratory, the accumulated experimental evidence, combined with advances in theoretical physics, warrant further research.

Last edited by Crazyhorse; 04-26-2016 at 09:52 PM.
  #62  
Old 04-26-2016, 11:52 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Actually, no, it's just an example of a scientist publishing the results he saw in an experiment, documenting the protocol and inviting peers to replicate or fail to replicate the results, and several have replicated them. It happens every day in every area of science.

As to your theory about physics making such a theory an absolute impossibility, here's an excerpt from one interesting study about how you may be wrong and Radin's results could be possible from a pure physics/neuroscience perspective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141237/

Note that the authors do not take this to mean absolute proof of anything, but merely that it "warrants further study."
Just to keep people in the loop, that article provides no evidence of any actual positive results. It does not even record experimental data. It describes a possible experimental structure that might be useful to explore retrocausal signaling, which has never been demonstrated conclusively but is merely not completely ruled out by physics. Yet. As is true for other types of time travel.

The peer-reviewed Journal it appeared in is Frontiers in Psychology. Questions have been raised about its peer review process.

So. Is psi worthy of rigorous, truly scientific study? Hard to think of anything that isn't. Is the sum total of rigorous, truly scientific evidence for it zero? Yep. Does that mean it's total and complete bullshit? Today it does.
  #63  
Old 04-27-2016, 12:26 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Just to keep people in the loop, that article provides no evidence of any actual positive results. It does not even record experimental data. It describes a possible experimental structure that might be useful to explore retrocausal signaling, which has never been demonstrated conclusively but is merely not completely ruled out by physics. Yet. As is true for other types of time travel.

The peer-reviewed Journal it appeared in is Frontiers in Psychology. Questions have been raised about its peer review process.
The article provides a theoretical answer to Stranger's assertion that the idea is impossible before you even begin any experiments because it would require overturning basic tenets of physics. If you disagree with any of the theoretical physics the article employs to demonstrate that isn't necessarily the case, and have more to go on than your personal opinion, why don't you publish a challenge to it?

The two main points of the excerpt that apply to his post are:

"That said, there is no physical law which precludes retrocausal information transfer."

And

"Lastly, it is worth noting, that ultimately whether any given theory can accommodate precognition or not is irrelevant; what is relevant are the data."

Those both seem to be correct statements, wherever they were published. If you disagree, again, publish a challenge to the very same NIH site that hosts the study or publish it at Frontiers in psychology or whatever and test your theory about their peer review process. Arguing it here is pretty easy to do with only personal opinions.

The data do indicate in some cases further research into some areas of paranormal psychology is definitely warranted. And it isn't even really controversial in many circles of science, but few want to do it themselves because they will be instantly lumped in with a bunch of crackpots.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
So. Is psi worthy of rigorous, truly scientific study? Hard to think of anything that isn't.
Thank you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Is the sum total of rigorous, truly scientific evidence for it zero? Yep. Does that mean it's total and complete bullshit? Today it does.
It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence.

Seems appropriate enough to have at least a mention in this thread among the echo chamber responses.
  #64  
Old 04-27-2016, 01:03 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence.
What observed results, exactly?

Show me some hypothesized mechanism by which some form of ESP could physically work, or statistically significant results of testing, or even some phenomenon that cannot be credibly explained by conventional means, and I'll agree that more research is warranted (albeit not by psychologists, and certainly not parapsychologists, who are the most gullible people this side of a pyramid scheme). But just reiterating that we don't know everything about how the natural world works, therefore all claims are equally valid holds about as much weight as the Tobacco Institute claiming that increased incidence of lung cancer doesn't definitvely correlate to cigarette use.

Stranger
  #65  
Old 04-27-2016, 01:19 AM
edwardcoast edwardcoast is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim B. View Post
I was actually inspired to ask this question by Star Trek: TOS. In the original series, ESP was apparently so mainstream (at that time at least), that they included it as part of their story line. Characters even had routine tests for their ESP aptitude. This story element featured prominently in the episode Where No Man Has Gone Before. By the time TNG came along, it was so intrinsically part of the series, they just had to include it again, like with the Betazoid race, for example.

Anyways, this is not the Cafe section. So I will no longer discuss the Star Trek connection. But as I said, it does bring up one question: What is the straight dope on ESP? Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind reading, for example? Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims?

Remember, my question is what is the straight dope. So I am asking you, the members, of this board, for information. Please don't ask me to provide support and evidence.

At the time the series was written, ESP was a buzzword. I wouldn't say it was mainstream. It was something getting attention. But the real reason they used ESP in Star Trek is the same reason they used transporter technology and that's to solve production problems in the series and give them more material to write about by extending the capabilities of either of them. I don't think ESP was included in Star Trek because it is an example of it being in popular use in the 1960s making it mainstream when the series was created and written.
  #66  
Old 04-27-2016, 01:36 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
This is GQ - opinions don't matter. That includes arguments both for and against the subject. It's very easy to say 'that's a bunch of bunk' or "it's true, I know it is!' but that just doesn't mean anything. So I provided a link to someone who has done considerable work on the subject, is a qualified scientist, and has applied the scientific method to experiments and research instead of just waving a magic wand and blinking his eyes. I maintain that his research on the subject is far more meaningful to this discussion than any of the personal opinions expressed so far, pro or con.
And yet you quoted Radin's opinion and told everyone to go read his studies, like we haven't already. You know why no one has posted studies to support their points so far? It's not because we're "nay-saying amateurs", it's because this isn't a specialist scientist forum and bombarding the OP with hundreds of papers on the overall null result of ESP-research would be counter productive.
We've read the science and, along with numerous researchers just as qualified as Radin, come to the conclusion that it's a dead end. Your contribution to this thread isn't a brave attempt to bring science to the table, it's plain old false balance.

But just in case someone is interested in reading dozens of scientists opinions to balance Radin, here's a couple to start with:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html
http://www.richardwiseman.com/resear...sychology.html
  #67  
Old 04-27-2016, 02:06 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,820
A common perception is that paranormal phenomena have not been given a fair chance...that mainstream science has been dismissive of such things...Won't somebody please study this!?

But in fact, through most of our history humans have put great stock in mysticism and spirits etc, and it's never given us anything. Science is actually the new kid on the block: an ability that humans had but was not taken seriously for far too long

Answering the OP though, no, there's no evidence for any of the phenomena you list. And scientists have tried to study such things, and either came up blank, or learned something about human psychology.

Last edited by Mijin; 04-27-2016 at 02:08 AM.
  #68  
Old 04-27-2016, 02:23 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
And yet you quoted Radin's opinion and told everyone to go read his studies, like we haven't already. You know why no one has posted studies to support their points so far? It's not because we're "nay-saying amateurs", it's because this isn't a specialist scientist forum and bombarding the OP with hundreds of papers on the overall null result of ESP-research would be counter productive.
We've read the science and, along with numerous researchers just as qualified as Radin, come to the conclusion that it's a dead end. Your contribution to this thread isn't a brave attempt to bring science to the table, it's plain old false balance.

But just in case someone is interested in reading dozens of scientists opinions to balance Radin, here's a couple to start with:
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html
http://www.richardwiseman.com/resear...sychology.html
Um, these are the first words of your cite:
Quote:
Although Prof Richard Wiseman does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
What observed results, exactly?

Show me some hypothesized mechanism by which some form of ESP could physically work, or statistically significant results of testing, or even some phenomenon that cannot be credibly explained by conventional means, and I'll agree that more research is warranted ...
Well, in order to do that I would probably post a link to a collection of studies and articles on the subject that is curated by someone who has devoted considerable time to studying the subject while using proper scientific methods. And then I would evaluate those results and think to myself "that doesn't actually provide conclusive proof of anything but it is very interesting to consider and the results aren't so far off base that it doesn't warrant additional study." I would have assumed my approach would be shared by others but it seems you want to me to post wall after wall of text quoting statistics that are already available at those links.

I'll just choose one from the several dozen that, to me, indicates good enough reason to justify further research.

Quote:
Abstract

In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 1.4 × 109, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis.

When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10-5, and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by “p-hacking”—the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of our database to be 0.20, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi.
In order to fully make all the arguments that indicate to many in the scientific community that further research isn't necessarily woo or wishful thinking at all, I would need to quote every paragraph of every page of every study that I linked to. Excerpts don't begin to approach the complexity of the topic and to understand some opinions you might just have to do the reading yourself and draw your own conclusions.
  #69  
Old 04-27-2016, 02:25 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,939
There was a time in my youth were I voraciously read about UFOs, ESP and other fortean subjects.

Got better.

As Mijin points out, scientists have tried to study such things already, besides coming empty I also realized how impractical things like remote viewing or sending images with your mind could be; not only unreliable. But once things like faxes were invented (even before the American civil war ) one can think that the extreme effort that it was supposed to be required for remote viewing was a moot point once technology that does not require faith demonstrates to be more accurate and to work all the time.
  #70  
Old 04-27-2016, 02:34 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I'll just choose one from the several dozen that, to me, indicates good enough reason to justify further research.

[snip]

In order to fully make all the arguments that indicate to many in the scientific community that further research isn't necessarily woo or wishful thinking at all, I would need to quote every paragraph of every page of every study that I linked to. Excerpts don't begin to approach the complexity of the topic and to understand some opinions you might just have to do the reading yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Of course there will always be a reason for further research, but as skeptics already reported, researchers like Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan deserve to be researched too as their research is not looking solid at all.

http://centerforopenscience.github.i...eptics-review/
Quote:
“Ah, psi. The remainder of my review will use a professional tone, and I will try to outline the problems I have with the authors' analyses. That said, I do think that this line of research tarnishes the reputation of psychology as an academic discipline. I urge the authors to convince themselves of the absence of psi and try and replicate one of Bem's experiment in a purely confirmatory setting, with a preregistered analysis protocol. When they monitor the Bayes factor they will, as N grows large, obtain massive evidence in favor of the truth. One good, preregistered experiment is worth a thousand experiments where the results are based on cherry-picking. To indicate that cherry-picking is a problem, I have never seen a preregistered experiment that monitored the Bayes factor and ended up supporting psi. Never. If the authors are able to produce such evidence in their own lab (after preregistering the analysis on OSF, and collecting data until the one-sided BF in favor of psi reaches, say, 20) then they can challenge me for an adversarial collaboration and I will gladly accept. Anyway, after having made my prior opinion clear, let's move on to the review. I have several major worries:

Background for Worry 1: In the abstract, Bem and colleagues suggest that the meta-analysis concerns replications of Bem's 2011 studies. However, this is not the case. The meta-analysis largely consists of studies that pre-date the 2011 work. Almost all of the pre-2011 studies were conducted by ESP proponents. The post-2011 studies, many of which were conducted by ESP skeptics, found no effect.
Quote:
In conclusion, the work by Bem and colleagues demonstrates that our bread-and-butter statistical methods can not be relied upon blindly. Meta-analyses, Bayes factors, p-curve analyses: all of these methods crumble to dust in the hands of researchers who are motivated to prove that ESP exists. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to state that ESP is where statistical methods go to die. Of course, Bem and colleagues will disagree with my interpretation of their work. To resolve the conflict, I repeat my challenge: preregister the experiment on OSF, monitor the Bayes factor until it exceeds 20, and then I will happily participate in an adversarial collaboration, and grudgingly acknowledge defeat if the data force me to. If the ESP proponents truly believe that the effect is real, preregistration and adversarial collaborations are the only way forward. Perhaps the same holds for other psychological phenomena that are currently under scrutiny as well.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-27-2016 at 02:36 AM.
  #71  
Old 04-27-2016, 03:06 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course there will always be a reason for further research, but as skeptics already reported, researchers like Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, and Duggan deserve to be researched too as their research is not looking solid at all.

http://centerforopenscience.github.i...eptics-review/
The process of science is all about theories and experimentation and peer scrutiny of the results. It's good that people are doing work on both sides of the question and challenging published research.

You can find junk science everywhere, not just in fringe topics like psi - but none of that undermines the basic conclusion that the results of some of this research, taken in the big picture across multiple replications by unrelated researchers (including control groups of deliberately selected skeptics whose only objective is to disprove the theory) does sometimes indicate something more than random chance in the collected data.

That isn't conclusive of anything but is pretty much the definition of findings that suggest further research is warranted.

Not having made some huge breakthrough yet is never a good reason not to test a theory and follow where the data leads. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years and the big bang theory was proposed, and thought to be utterly ridiculous, centuries before it became the primary working theory for the origin of the universe.
  #72  
Old 04-27-2016, 03:48 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
The process of science is all about theories and experimentation and peer scrutiny of the results. It's good that people are doing work on both sides of the question and challenging published research.

You can find junk science everywhere, not just in fringe topics like psi - but none of that undermines the basic conclusion that the results of some of this research, taken in the big picture across multiple replications by unrelated researchers (including control groups of deliberately selected skeptics whose only objective is to disprove the theory) does sometimes indicate something more than random chance in the collected data.
Nope, you are not reading the criticism properly, there are lots of doubts about how they used statistics to get the results they got.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
That isn't conclusive of anything but is pretty much the definition of findings that suggest further research is warranted.
Again, further research into how the ESP researchers there got it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Not having made some huge breakthrough yet is never a good reason not to test a theory and follow where the data leads. People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years and the big bang theory was proposed, and thought to be utterly ridiculous, centuries before it became the primary working theory for the origin of the universe.
Actually, it was in 1927 that the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory and for thousands of years already it was known that the earth was round. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

The issue here is that ESP has been investigated and it will continue to be, but one has to realize what the preponderance of evidence is telling us, no good evidence has been found to support that it exists and there is even the issue of how unreliable it is. I can say that thanks to the admission seen in many documentaries where the ESP believers tell the skeptics that their powers (or the powers of magical water in one funny occasion when Randi looked at Russian medicine quacks) do fail in the end because of an "unbelievers effect". Well, modern technology like a cell phone does not care about the ones that do not believe in it and will work better and more reliable than the remote viewers think they do.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-27-2016 at 03:48 AM.
  #73  
Old 04-27-2016, 05:34 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Um, these are the first words of your cite:
Quote:
Although Prof Richard Wiseman does not think that the results of laboratory-based studies into psychic ability provide convincing evidence of such abilities, he does believe that they do justify further work in this area.
Wiseman's focus has been on running strictly controlled replications. He's keeping the door open on principle, unlike Radin who's keeping the door open because he rejects the reality of his own failures and tries to open new windows because science doesn't seem to be working. Here's the opening to the conclusion of a meta-study in your earlier link:
Quote:
Despite the continuing popularity of DHI as an
alternative healing modality, when it comes to assessing
clinical efficacy, high-quality experiments have so
far failed to show reliable effects. The contradiction
between persistent popularity and lack of clinical effectiveness
may be due on the one hand to some healers,
in some contexts, who do seem to produce remarkable
outcomes,26,52 and on the other hand by conventional
RCT protocols that may be incompatible with the
nature of DHI phenomena.26,53,54 Tools must match
the requirements of the subject, and if the right tools
are not available, then new ones must be devised. In
other words, it is inadvisable to use a sledgehammer to
study the surface structure of a soap bubble.
Radin et al (2015). Distant healing intention therapies: An overview of the scientific evidence

He completely ignores the possibility distance healing might be entirely bunk and fails to take into account all the results from medical research and actual psychology that show the very normal psychological and methodological causes of the "persistent popularity" of completely bunk "phenomena".

If distance healing is a soap bubble, the persistent popularity is unrelated to any effects it has, using both to justify further research is intellectually dishonest.
  #74  
Old 04-27-2016, 11:06 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
It means some observed results warrant further research despite there not being conclusive evidence.

Seems appropriate enough to have at least a mention in this thread among the echo chamber responses.
Let me use appropriate scientific language to address this.

Nuts.

Time travel has not been proven mathematically impossible to occur, yet any "observed results" of time travelers is complete and total bullshit. Can and should mathematical physicists continue to investigate and produce more advanced theories? Yes. The critical understanding to take away from that is that theory and experiment are often separate and sometimes never come together.

As I said earlier, scientific and "scientific" research into psi goes back to the 19th century. It is a morass that has ruined the reputation of every investigator who claimed positive results. Nothing, repeat NOTHING, has ever risen to proper scientific standards. Even scientists can get fooled if they want to believe. That a few investigators continue to explore could be a fine thing. Claims have been made and claims deserve investigation. A century and half of debunking should have taught anyone entering the field how to proceed to get worthwhile results. If the investigators fail to use these extremely rigorous safeguards, they are charlatans or cranks or believers or otherwise despoilers of the name of scientist. They degrade the entire discussion.

Your comments here as somebody who merely Googles a link without investigating its value or reading anything further on that site belong in that same category. So far everything you've presented here is not the "worthy opposition" or the "Devil's Advocate" but desperate cherrypicking that subtracts rather than adds to our understanding of the subject. The rest of us have done our homework, long before you entered the thread. At least come up to that level of knowledge before you start lecturing us on what we don't know.
  #75  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:47 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Wow I really didn't want to get involved in a Great Debate - I don't post often enough to keep up with the fanatic anti-everything-except-what-we-already-know crowd. That is why I generally don't post in GD. And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest of who can find the cites that best supports their personal opinion.

This is a GQ thread where a person asked for more information about the current state of "ESP" and such in science.

Quote:
What is the straight dope on ESP? Telekinesis, clairvoyance, and mind reading, for example? Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims?

A link to Radin's page about research into "ESP" and such is as close to a factual answer to the OP as has been provided in this thread. The OP didn't ask what are posters personal beliefs about the topic but rather what scientific work has been done, and could there be any validity to any of it. That collection of research is about the closest the OP is going to find to studies that have approached the subject using scientific method, in a sea of frauds and loonies pretending to research the same topics. Among the links are many negative articles and studies that do not support any belief in ESP. There are some that don't provide any conclusive proof but suggest that further research is warranted.

That isn't an endorsement of any one particular view expressed in any one particular study - just a reference for the OP about what scientific work has been done. All they are going get here otherwise are the typical echo chamber responses of people who think that they appear to be smart simply by being skeptical. A few here have posted well reasoned rebuttals to some of the arguments made by some of the studies, but that is irrelevant to the purpose of posting them; to give the OP a full picture of what work has been done on the subject. Taken as a whole what can be concluded is that yes it is considered 'fringe science', many studies have been done that amounted to very little evidence, and in some cases data does actually suggest a better than random chance and should be investigated further. And it will be investigated further despite the protests of our resident messageboard scientists. I think the OP deserves to see all data not just that which is presented to him by a handful of people here who think they have already reached their own conclusions and therefore are qualified to demand an end to any further investigation of the subject.

All I can tell you is that in my field I work with a lot of very talented and well known researchers. Speaking candidly to them about such topics almost without exception they all stay that they, personally, in their own experiences, have been interested in topics like ESP but would never touch a study on it with a 10 foot pole - exactly because of the arrogant, and IMHO very unscientific, attitudes expressed right in this very thread.

There are many who would try to squash any research, any investigation into the subject because they are already sure that what they know, or think they know, based on what has been done so far, is as far as science will ever go with the subject, so case closed, stop discussing it. That is a really arrogant stance, and fortunately science doesn't work that way. It is supposed to be about exploring what we don't already know, not just patting each other on the back by reaffirming what we think we do already know. If you go back in history there is example after example of people who held on to a line of investigation despite being doubted and even ridiculed by their peers, only to turn out much later that they were actually on to something. I am not a woo believer, I don't think I've ever seen any evidence of ESP in my own life, but I'm not so closed minded as to pretend I am in a position to determine that nobody should ever do research on the topic or discuss it ever again just because I don't personally buy the theories. And when someone more accomplished than me takes the time to do study after study because they believe more research is warranted, I say go for it. Why not exactly? What is being threatened exactly by doing more research? It can only lead to more knowledge, whether it supports or fails to support various hypothesis.

Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won't touch it.

Radin is a guy who said fuck it, I don't care. I'm going to research what interests me. Sure some of his ideas are out there, but I do respect his courage and from what I've seen I do believe that he applies proper research practices to his work. Much of it concludes with negative results, some of it seems to show some promise in some of his lines of investigation and certainly who am I to tell him that it doesn't? That makes him something of a stand out among many others - frauds and loonies and woo practitioners- who have filled the void left in research in these areas due to the dangerous waters they have become for researchers.

Anyone who doesn't think the link is appropriate to the OP's actual question, as opposed to side arguments they have derailed the thread with, are welcome to open up a GD about it. For my purposes in this thread I have contributed what I intended, a link to a bunch of research on the subject that the OP asked about.
  #76  
Old 04-27-2016, 08:55 PM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
It's complete and total bullshit. If you find someone who disagrees, ask them for an answer couched in physics, chemistry, or biology.
Nah, this is the wrong approach. The response to this will likely be that they know ESP exists because of [insert anecdotal BS] and the way it works is not for them to understand.

And that's actually a completely valid position if they have the evidence. Plenty of breakthrough research starts with an inexplicable experimental result, with the understanding of that result following after.

The better thing is just to ask for the clear objective replicable statistically significant evidence.
  #77  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:08 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won't touch it.
Did I say nuts? Here it is again. Nuts.

Keep on patting yourself on your back while utterly mischaracterizing our arguments. Heck, our actual words. I want scientists to do proper science. Not only will I support that but I have, repeatedly, and in this very thread. I will also slam bad science every chance I get.

If you won't, why should we listen?
  #78  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:10 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Attitudes like Expano Mapcase and others in this thread permeate the world of science and academia, though, and if anyone - an accomplished and honest researcher - tried to take an honest look at some of these topics they would be laughed out of their jobs, lose tenure, lose grants, lose hard earned reputations, so they won't touch it.
That is actually just what I see in other issues like evolution or climate change. Many people complaining about that, but not demonstrating that they lose tenure or reputation just because of unorthodox research, the reality is that they lose tenure and lose reputations because they failed to demonstrate with hard evidence what they pushed later in life. Not because of the subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Radin is a guy who said fuck it, I don't care. I'm going to research what interests me. Sure some of his ideas are out there, but I do respect his courage and from what I've seen I do believe that he applies proper research practices to his work. Much of it concludes with negative results, some of it seems to show some promise in some of his lines of investigation and certainly who am I to tell him that it doesn't? That makes him something of a stand out among many others - frauds and loonies and woo practitioners- who have filled the void left in research in these areas due to the dangerous waters they have become for researchers.
The problem here is that you clearly are an ignorant of the frauds and loonies that Radin decided that were the beesness, not great examples of ESP.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21749
Quote:
Chris French criticized Radin for his selective historical overview of parapsychology and ignoring evidence of fraud. Radin failed to mention that the medium Florence Cook was caught in acts of trickery and the Fox sisters publicly confessed their spirit communications were fraudulent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Anyone who doesn't think the link is appropriate to the OP's actual question, as opposed to side arguments they have derailed the thread with, are welcome to open up a GD about it. For my purposes in this thread I have contributed what I intended, a link to a bunch of research on the subject that the OP asked about.
I can only thank you for bringing him to my attention, I do think that the OP and everyone else should be aware about the problems that one of the most important proponents of ESP has, he is not really a reliable source. We would not be doing our job if that was left out.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html

Last edited by GIGObuster; 04-27-2016 at 10:13 PM.
  #79  
Old 04-27-2016, 10:50 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is actually just what I see in other issues like evolution or climate change. Many people complaining about that, but not demonstrating that they lose tenure or reputation just because of unorthodox research, the reality is that they lose tenure and lose reputations because they failed to demonstrate with hard evidence what they pushed later in life. Not because of the subject.



The problem here is that you clearly are an ignorant of the frauds and loonies that Radin decided that were the beesness, not great examples of ESP.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21749



I can only thank you for bringing him to my attention, I do think that the OP and everyone else should be aware about the problems that one of the most important proponents of ESP has, he is not really a reliable source. We would not be doing our job if that was left out.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html
He is certainly not without many critics, and like I said some of his ideas are out there by my understanding of the world. Nevertheless, these points remain irrelevant to the OP or the links I provided.

The studies I linked include many outright failures. Some of those originally thought to indicate positive results may later have been shown to have been interpreted incorrectly, or based on a false model to begin with, or any number of other things. They are still examples of work that has been done in the field. And that is all we're trying to answer here.

As to the second question if any of it has any validity, showing where leading research in the area tends to get agreement from many peers that 'more research is warranted' is a good indication of where there may, or may not, be a shred of validity, and where there will be future work done.
  #80  
Old 04-27-2016, 11:14 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I want scientists to do proper science. Not only will I support that but I have, repeatedly, and in this very thread. I will also slam bad science every chance I get.
I will definitely look for your posts when there is thread asking "What research that Exapno Mapcase approves of has been done in ESP?"

Since this one doesn't, I'm happy to have obliged the OP with a factual answer to their question.
  #81  
Old 04-27-2016, 11:26 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I will definitely look for your posts when there is thread asking "What research that Exapno Mapcase approves of has been done in ESP?"

Since this one doesn't, I'm happy to have obliged the OP with a factual answer to their question.
Of course the whole factual answer needs to point out that it is research that is very underwhelming.
  #82  
Old 04-27-2016, 11:52 PM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course the whole factual answer needs to point out that it is research that is very underwhelming.
If you like, but that is also subjective. Someone hoping to see evidence suggesting their hypothesis is correct will get really excited about some .005% variance in a statistic they are tracking and call it overwhelming. Someone convinced it's a waste of time will consider the same result underwhelming. It isn't particularly useful information, but having access to all available data so one can draw their own conclusions is.
  #83  
Old 04-28-2016, 12:06 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
The studies I linked include many outright failures. Some of those originally thought to indicate positive results may later have been shown to have been interpreted incorrectly, or based on a false model to begin with, or any number of other things. They are still examples of work that has been done in the field. And that is all we're trying to answer here.
So give us his best one, in your opinion. Is that really too much to ask for, if you're going to complain that that we are only pointing at the bad parts of his work?
Show us the good part.
  #84  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:02 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So give us his best one, in your opinion. Is that really too much to ask for, if you're going to complain that that we are only pointing at the bad parts of his work?
Show us the good part.
Give you his best one? Why? If someone wanted to know what scientific work has been done in the area of primates and I linked to a body of work by Jane Goodall that some primatologist maintains on his website, would you insist that I tell you what I think was her 'best one' before honoring it with your approval as a valid answer to the question? Or defend any arguments you might have with her conclusions?

You seem to be mistaking my participation in the thread to be from some wish to debate people about the merits of this research. It isn't. It is to send the OP a link to a body of work in ESP and such. You also seem to be mistaking the link to be some collection of Radin's own work, it isn't. It's a huge collection of links to psi research spanning decades that he finds interesting or relevant or otherwise chooses to keep on his site. So me linking to it really isn't a justification for you to ask me to show an example of his work.

But when sucked in by various arguments, I made the mistake of adding to that factual answer that IMO Radin is qualified to do such work and appears to me to be doing it using proper scientific protocol. That too, does not imply I think he was always right, sometimes right, or never right, just that the way he conducts research and documents his protocols and invites peer review is about as good as it's going to get for the OP in terms of any hope of finding credible research data on the subject. But even if you don't agree with that or can outright prove it wrong, it doesn't make the reference to his work less relevant to the thread.

But to answer your question, I already did provide one such example. It is irrelevant to the thread, and your opinion of its credibility matters not in the context of this thread so I'm not sure why you're asking, but if you read it you can find it.
  #85  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:11 AM
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 5,798
I don't think that brains that emit EM radiation would be completely unaffected by EM radiation of comparable wavelength.
  #86  
Old 04-28-2016, 01:38 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,937
From 1979-2007 the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab investigated ESP. They found very small but statistically significant abilities of their test subjects to influence a hardware random number generator. Across millions of trials they got a change of about one tenth of a percent.

Interesting if true. According to the wiki article, half of the significant effect appears to have been associated with one test subject who is suspected to have been affiliated with the laboratory. Uh oh. There have been problems with reproducability. And of course, the investigators were pretty vague about the nature of the physics underlying effect, IIRC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince...s_Research_Lab


Arguably the above constituted real science. It wasn't very persuasive science. It wasn't very good science. But it beats most of the crowd that Randi encountered during the first leg of his one million dollar challenge.


That said, I'd like to see someone take another stab at the "Stare at a person's back and watch them turn around" phenomenon. I've wondered about that. I've read here that it was falsified in the early 1900s, but maybe there's some clever work that could be done with it. Something having to do with the science of learning and cognition.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 04-28-2016 at 01:42 AM.
  #87  
Old 04-28-2016, 02:03 AM
Trinopus Trinopus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
. . . That said, I'd like to see someone take another stab at the "Stare at a person's back and watch them turn around" phenomenon. I've wondered about that. I've read here that it was falsified in the early 1900s, but maybe there's some clever work that could be done with it. Something having to do with the science of learning and cognition.
But it was validated on Hollywood Squares! They wouldn't have said it was true if it weren't really!

Heck-a-mile, I'm happy with people taking a shot at any of this (within reasonable financial limits.) At worst, it's a waste of time; at best, it might be revolutionary. One of the side-stream benefits is an increase in rigor in experimental protocols. We've learned a lot of ways people can cheat at ESP tests.
  #88  
Old 04-28-2016, 02:38 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
Heck-a-mile, I'm happy with people taking a shot at any of this (within reasonable financial limits.) At worst, it's a waste of time; at best, it might be revolutionary. One of the side-stream benefits is an increase in rigor in experimental protocols. We've learned a lot of ways people can cheat at ESP tests.
Won't be revolutionary. But I've observed the effect first hand and wondered what's going on. I can imagine a number of non-woo explanations and trust some of them apply. I have a college undergraduate project in mind: a couple of observers and video cameras along with a handful of volunteers could form the basis of a decent senior thesis.

To be clear, it would be like any number of psychological experiments which purport to do one thing (in this case testing for ESP) while actually doing another (seeing how people draw inferences from a given experience).
  #89  
Old 04-28-2016, 02:41 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
That said, I'd like to see someone take another stab at the "Stare at a person's back and watch them turn around" phenomenon. I've wondered about that. I've read here that it was falsified in the early 1900s, but maybe there's some clever work that could be done with it. Something having to do with the science of learning and cognition.
Our friend Radin is on the case. Here's another meta-analysis of a study and protocol also found on that psi research collection I linked earlier. With 33,000 some odd trials it has about a 54% chance of being correct when a person "feels they are being started at". That is only about 1 correct answer per trial better than random chance. Radin maintains that over so many trials a consistent rate of 54% is significantly better than chance. If anyone finds those results interesting enough to warrant further study, I say go for it. I hate that feeling when someone's staring at me.
  #90  
Old 04-28-2016, 03:21 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Our friend Radin is on the case. Here's another meta-analysis of a study and protocol also found on that psi research collection I linked earlier. With 33,000 some odd trials it has about a 54% chance of being correct when a person "feels they are being started at". That is only about 1 correct answer per trial better than random chance. Radin maintains that over so many trials a consistent rate of 54% is significantly better than chance. If anyone finds those results interesting enough to warrant further study, I say go for it. I hate that feeling when someone's staring at me.
Again we see Radin completely ignoring the possibility there is no effect at all and null effects being under-reported. We now have very good evidence this is the case in regular psychology, and it's always been a major accusation against parapsychology, and yet Radin does not suggest any measures to prevent it in future research, such as pre-registration of trials.

What has in fact happened since then, as linked from Radin's list of evidence, is that a collaboration between a believer and sceptic have failed to replicate the effects found in the believer's part of an earlier study on this "effect": http://deanradin.com/evidence/Wiseman2006.pdf
  #91  
Old 04-28-2016, 03:39 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Again we see Radin completely ignoring the possibility there is no effect at all and null effects being under-reported. We now have very good evidence this is the case in regular psychology, and it's always been a major accusation against parapsychology, and yet Radin does not suggest any measures to prevent it in future research, such as pre-registration of trials.

What has in fact happened since then, as linked from Radin's list of evidence, is that a collaboration between a believer and sceptic have failed to replicate the effects found in the believer's part of an earlier study on this "effect": http://deanradin.com/evidence/Wiseman2006.pdf
So Radin collaborated with a skeptic of the work as a control to close up any possible holes in the previous trials and lessen the possible effects of bias, and he found that in that case they were not able to reproduce the results, and he published this finding, and you're saying that none of this qualifies as an example of actual scientific research that has gone on in the area of ESP?

Your personal opinion about some personality defect you think a researcher has that doesn't allow him to accept failure is irrelevant to whether or not the work was or was not a series of studies about a hypothesis related to ESP, an experiment and protocol, and an analysis of the results of multiple trials of that experiment which was then opened up to peer review. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as scientific research that has been done in ESP, whether or not you agree with the conclusions or like the researcher's attitude.
  #92  
Old 04-28-2016, 06:21 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 4,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
and you're saying that none of this qualifies as an example of actual scientific research that has gone on in the area of ESP?
No I'm not. I've never claimed there's no actual scientific research going on. I've said it's fringe at best and I'm saying that an unbiased analysis of the actual scientific research on the area of ESP shows that any positive results can be wholly explained by various flaws in the research itself and the self-selection of publishing positive results as the result of stricter controls and pre-registering is invariably null results.

That an actual scientist, Radin, neither accepts this or takes it into consideration when suggesting future research in the field shows that he's a shoddy scientist.

You've limited your quest to defend your introducing Radin in the post by picking a small part of the OP and ignoring the overall gist of it. The OP asked "Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims?"

Radin is at the fringe of science, steadfastly ignoring the most obvious causes of ESP-results diminishing in the face of stricter controls. And so I stand by my first answer in the thread. Other than the "there are no final answers in science, ever" there is not and can't be validity to the claims of ESP.
  #93  
Old 04-28-2016, 06:35 AM
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 27,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
Wow I really didn't want to get involved in a Great Debate - I don't post often enough to keep up with the fanatic anti-everything-except-what-we-already-know crowd.
Name that logical fallacy.
  #94  
Old 04-28-2016, 06:49 AM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 14,965
There were reports that the Soviet Union had a project to investigate ESP (remote viewing)
In response the USA researched ESP from 1978 - 1995, spending $20 million.
They found nothing.
  #95  
Old 04-28-2016, 07:25 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Name that logical fallacy.
Not sure of your point but mine was that if I leave the thread for even 12 hours there are already 25 things to reply to and it isn't how i want to spend my time on the boards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
No I'm not. I've never claimed there's no actual scientific research going on. I've said it's fringe at best and I'm saying that an unbiased analysis of the actual scientific research on the area of ESP shows that any positive results can be wholly explained by various flaws in the research itself and the self-selection of publishing positive results as the result of stricter controls and pre-registering is invariably null results.

That an actual scientist, Radin, neither accepts this or takes it into consideration when suggesting future research in the field shows that he's a shoddy scientist.

You've limited your quest to defend your introducing Radin in the post by picking a small part of the OP and ignoring the overall gist of it. The OP asked "Where does it stand now in modern science? Is it at all in the mainstream? Or is it relegated to the fringe of science? And could there be any validity to its claims?"

Radin is at the fringe of science, steadfastly ignoring the most obvious causes of ESP-results diminishing in the face of stricter controls. And so I stand by my first answer in the thread. Other than the "there are no final answers in science, ever" there is not and can't be validity to the claims of ESP.
It is kind of telling about the relevance of that cite that ten minutes after this tiresome hijack appeared to have finally ended, someone posted they would like to see more research about the 'feeling of being stared at effect' and, in fact, Radin and others have done extensive work on it and details were contained in my link. The same actually applied to another mention of random number generator tests too.

The first two things that popped up in general discussion of the topic sans hijacks were already addressed by my link 50 posts ago. Whether or not those or any hypothesis panned out, or may pan out with further research, or never will pan out, doesn't matter. The research they are doing addresses questions that they and many people want to continue researching. It may or may not provide answers. And if it does, those answers might completely disprove any link to some kind of ESP or psychic phenomena, and instead might indicate some new branch of research into other directions.

I agree with Trinopus' sentiment above - "I'm happy with people taking a shot at any of this (within reasonable financial limits.) At worst, it's a waste of time; at best, it might be revolutionary."
  #96  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:00 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
The first two things that popped up in general discussion of the topic sans hijacks were already addressed by my link 50 posts ago. Whether or not those or any hypothesis panned out, or may pan out with further research, or never will pan out, doesn't matter."
Yes it does matter-that's the whole point of the OP. Is there anything to this ESP stuff? At some point you've got to quit digging through the humongous pile of equine crap and just admit that there's no pony, and your pointing to even more of it doesn't increase the chances of there being a pony unless your new pile lets out a whinny or two. I do find it interesting that you refer to any responses to your pushing of Radin's work as "hijacking".
  #97  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:06 AM
glee glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 14,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
It is kind of telling about the relevance of that cite that ten minutes after this tiresome hijack appeared to have finally ended, someone posted they would like to see more research about the 'feeling of being stared at effect' and, in fact, Radin and others have done extensive work on it and details were contained in my link.
Did you read my link? The USA spent 17 years and $20 million (nearer $50 million on today's money value) and found nothing of value.
I expect that dwarfs the research Radin has done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse View Post
I agree with Trinopus' sentiment above - "I'm happy with people taking a shot at any of this (within reasonable financial limits.) At worst, it's a waste of time; at best, it might be revolutionary."
After 17 years and $50 million, we can see which it is.
  #98  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:15 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 53,330
Are we supposed to keep looking for it until we find it...even if it doesn't exist?
  #99  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:32 AM
Princhester Princhester is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 14,257
SomeWHERE over the rainbow,
Way up HIGH,
There's a phenom'non I heard of,
once in Rad'n's laborat'RYE!

Last edited by Princhester; 04-28-2016 at 08:33 AM.
  #100  
Old 04-28-2016, 08:47 AM
Crazyhorse Crazyhorse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by glee View Post
Did you read my link? The USA spent 17 years and $20 million (nearer $50 million on today's money value) and found nothing of value.
I expect that dwarfs the research Radin has done.
I hesitate to even mention it at this point but since you clearly aren't aware of it Radin was employed by SRI International during those years and participated in most of those tests.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017