[anonymous]

continued from previous post

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/0...36713347458643

This is a popular skeptical mantra. The more frequently it's repeated the more it seems plausible. Unfortunately, it's not true. This is not to say that there aren't occasional flaws or loopholes found in experiments. But when this happens the next round of studies fixes the problems and the same or similar results are still obtained.

I am not aware of any class of psi experiments where earlier observed effects have disappeared. There are certainly fads in which some experiments become more or less popular, but this has more to do with (the handful of) researchers following current fashions rather than previous effects going away.

That said, researchers frequently report a decline effect in these studies. I've seen this in my own studies. I suspect that most of the declines (at least the declines that I've seen) are due to psychological factors, such as boredom and/or anxiety. But as I point out in EM, decline effects can be found in all sorts of experimental disciplines, not just psi.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/0...85253780265346

Alcock is questioning whether parapsychologists have forgotten science by making scientifically unwarranted claims about the existence of paranormal phenomena.

The gigantic difference between psi research and many other denizens of uncertain frontier realms is that psi effects can be inferred solely based on empirical data collected under conditions that would be considered rigorously acceptable in any other area of science (if the topics didn't involve psi).

That is, one doesn't need a theory to demonstrate that unexpected synchronous correlations can appear in two isolated brains when the owners of those brains are asked to keep each other in mind. The fact that the resulting correlation is suspiciously similar to quantum entanglement in photons, observed under conceptually similar circumstances, gives one at least a working metaphor to play with.

If we had to wait for theory to inform us what is acceptable to observe, we'd all still be living in dank caves and eating grubs for dinner. People who require a satisfactory explanation of empirical data before accepting those data as genuine are not practicing science as I understand it.

In my view, people who are heavily theory-driven tend to resemble those who rely on religious doctrine to determine their beliefs. I am skeptical of theories not only because historically they are often found to be wrong, but because pledging allegience to a theory blinds us to alternatives that are not accounted for by the theory.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/0...80271487966629

This line of argument overlooks why proof-oriented psi experiments are conducted in the first place. People report experiences suggesting the existence of interconnections through space and time. Experiments are devised to see if those experiences are delusions or genuine. The data from those experiments suggest that in some cases these interconnections are genuine.

How to explain these experiences presents a challenge for theorists. But the fact that they occur is theory-independent.

Imagine if someone had stumbled across photon entanglement in the optics lab before invention of quantum theory. How would those correlations at a distance be regarded by most scientists? Probably as Einstein did: spooky actions at a distance, which everyone knows (based on prior theory) cannot be. and yet they are.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2005/0...78896396196169

I discuss these topics in some detail in Entangled Minds.

Briefly, effect size declines occur in many research domains. In psi research the declines are likely due to shifts from proof-oriented to process-oriented research. The former studies are designed to optimize effect sizes, while the latter studies are designed to investigate parameters that modulate psi ability.

Experimenter expectancy effects are pervasive throughout science. They are especially noticable in the behavior, social and medical sciences, but they also occur in the so-called hard sciences, including physics. See, e.g. this article.

In general, armchair skeptics usually offer weak critiques that fail to pass the double-standard test. That is, if the criticism applies equally to conventional scientific domains, then the criticism aimed at psi research is invalid.

The principle valid skeptical argument is that psi effects observed under laboratory conditions cannot be demonstrated with high confidence on demand. Meta-analyses suggest that the phenomena are independently repeatable, but in any given study it is not yet possible to provide a proof-positive recipe for success.

Those who hold a strong view that current scientific knowledge is more or less complete take this as evidence that psi does not exist, and that any evidence presented for psi is either flawed or an illusion.

Those who hold a more moderate (and humble) view, that science is a very recent invention in historical terms, take it as evidence that our understanding of the fabric of reality is not sufficiently comprehensive to fully explain these (and many other) natural phenomena.

My opinion is that psi will one day be explanable in rational, scientific terms. It's difficult to guess when this might occur, but given current accelerating trends in knowledge, I'd estimate that by 2020 we will have reliable demonstrations of some psi effects. To achieve this will require, among other things, some changes in current scientific epistemology.