Either way, the proponent of a position must show evidence for it. In this case, as I have said before, the PEAR experiment has not been duplicated. This is not a basis for science.
If you wish to belief that there is some kind of mental powers without evidence, go right ahead. But please do not discuss it as some sort of scientific investigation.
Read the thread title again. The reason I’m frustrated is that no one is attempting to recreate the experiment. How can you duplicate the results if you don’t redo the experiment? The only other experiment performed was materially different - it added completely new variables. The only criticism of the PEAR experiment is one that could be remedied by repeating it without using a staff member as one of the subjects.
IzzyR said:
That’s the main point of where we disagree, I guess – at least in the context of this thread. If skeptics were to work together with believers to look at the experimental conditions and plot out ahead of time what kind of results might be expected if ESP were to actually manifest itself, I think that would be the basis for a good start, at the very least. Indeed, this is something akin to what Randi does for his challenge. He has the applicant sign off on the conditions and what the results should be ahead of time so they can’t come back later and say, “Oh, the sun was in my eyes” (or whatever the paranormal equivalent of that would be).
Well, what does impartial judgement mean? I don’t really understand the distinction. How can an individual scientist ever be impartial if they have opinions? Evidence is science is seldom all in one direction and incontrovertible; people are going to choose what evidence to believe and how to interpret it according to their opinions and prejudices. Is that not being impartial?
Before I explain how I use these terms let me just make a few points:
I don’t think professional skeptics employ bad science, but I do think they spin the the results. I don’t disagree with their evaluation of the methods used by others or the conclusions they draw in raw form, but they spin the results to the public to reflect their feelings that a theory is outright bogus rather than just unsubstantiated (No evidence for P, therefore; Not P) This spin creates a de facto counter theory that is equally unsubstantiated. I think skepticism would be better served if they stuck to in/validating null hypotheses and stepped out of the realm of consumer watchdogging.
I created this thread out of frustration that the claimants of anomalous phenomena and the ultimate arbitrators of the truth of claims don’t get together to set acceptable criteria. FWIW, I think the onus to seek help lies with the claimants but I find myself more frustrated with the skeptics because I hold them to a higher standard.
Now on to the difference between opinion and impartial judgement:
Opinions are something you HAVE, while impartial judgment is something you USE. You can have an opinion about how an experiment will pan out before the results are in, at which time you use impartial judgement to come to a conclusion. If the standards for significance and methods are set beforehand then there really isn’t anything to opine. Does a skeptic-certified statistically significant result prove that “intention” is the cause of the variance? No, we both know there is probably no way to isolate “intention” as the only variable, but it might be enough proof to recruit better minds to creating theories rather than just debunking them.
FWIW, I thought the photon/electron comment was funny too, but funny straw men are a pain in the ass. 
KC said:
This is great – but the problem is that when you are dealing with the media, you have about three seconds to get your point across. I just had a radio interview in which I barely got to say two words about a subject before the host peppered me with another one. It’s hard to take the time to explain how a lack of evidence doesn’t absolutely prove that it’s untrue but makes it unlikely and it’s up to the claimant to prove that it is true.
Even so, I do my best in such situations to explain it. For example, when he asked about UFOs and crop circles I said there is no evidence that crop circles have ever been anything but hoaxes, and that all evidence points to UFOs being misconceptions and some hoaxes. Then we were on another topic.
I think if you look at the majority of times when skeptics write something up, you will find that they are careful to explain that there is a lack of evidence rather than just outright saying it’s bogus. If you feel differently, I’d like some more explanation as to what you have seen that makes you feel that way.
Oh, and as one final thing, I do find it somewhat amusing that you say skeptics “spin” things to the public, since 9 out of 10 times skeptics are totally ignored by the media and thus their message never even gets out to the public – but if a “psychic” makes a claim, watch 'em beat a path to her door.
Out of curiosity, has Randi ever reached acceptable terms with anyone and conducted such a test? If not, has he failed to reach agreed terms, or has no one ever taken him up altogether?
Not so. At least one team tried to duplicate the experiment and failed.
IzzyR asked:
Yes, he has come to terms with people and yes they have taken the test (at least early stages of it – I believe there are generally stages). I believe either Nova or Dateline NBC even videotaped one or more such people. I’m reaching back into my memory here, so I hope I’m not confusing this with something else (let me explain – I know people have taken the test, but I’m not sure the story I’m about to tell is an example of that, just because of hazy memory). Basically, it involved dowsers. They were given the opportunity to examine the area in which they were going to be dowsing before the test started to make sure there were no bad influences. They agreed that they could detect that which the test was meant to determine. Then they took it and, well, failed.
I just checked Randi’s website. While on a quick look I couldn’t find any details of those who have failed, I did find this at the end of the challenge agreement, which discusses how people have failed at the challenge:
Of course, then there are people like Sylvia Browne, who has twice publicly accepted Randi’s terms to take the Challenge (both times on Larry King, if memory serves) and NEVER actually did it. A good little plan, I think. Publicly agree so people will nod their heads and say she’s open to it. Then privately tell him to shove off, so really only skeptics and those who follow Randi will know about that part.
Incidentally, the very first condition of Randi’s challenge is this:
“Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. This is the primary and most important of these rules.”
I believe you on this but I haven’t seen it anywhere. Do you have a cite? I still maintain that the experiment with photons was materially different.
Why are the photons any different?
I think it’s a reasonable assumption that IF there is such a thing as telekinesis, mass MIGHT play a role. In either case it’s a variable that should be isolated. Let’s not get into the debate about whether a photon has mass.