Quote:
Originally Posted by eyemsougly  it sounds like the big flaw was using VHS tapes, which was pretty much all that was available back then. As the tapes get worn down subjects might beinadvertantly cued that a certain segment was the target. Apparently there being more hits in later parts of trials gave weight to this or something.
Hopefully this link works: Ganzfeld Experiment
Anyway, since 2000 everything has been computerized. Unfortunately the article doesn't specify how true to the ganzfeld protocol the 20 post-2000 studies have been so the results might not be as bad as they seem on the surface. |
It is always important to realise that tightening conditions on these experiments may also change them in other ways - a poor result should not be automatically interpreted as an indication that (possibly unintentional) cheating was occurring.
It is worth reading Sheldrake's accounts of how some skeptics tried to repeat his results.
I agree with your list of experiments with the most promise. However, I can imagine a series of experiments designed to increase the rigour of the dogs experiment:
1) Take the dog away from home and place him in a carefully monitored dog kennel - this will make it easier to avoid a variety of possible problems with the original experiment.
2) Since the dogs may be using conventional senses, the rigour of the experiment could be improved further by surgically removing or anaesthetising the dog's noses and ears.
My guess would be that after those experimental improvements had been made, the original anomalous result would disappear - if not for other reasons, because the dog would feel utterly dejected and unloved. Since the procedures I have suggested would be considered perfectly acceptable in conventional scientific experiments, I can even imagine the above scenario being played out, and the results being published as a refutation of Sheldrake's experiments!
My point is that IMHO there is such intense antipathy to Ψ evidence, that experiments can be biassed away from such results, almost unconsciously.
It is considered valid to invent an objection to a Ψ experiment without giving any actual evidence that the supposed flaw could genuinely lead to an anomalous result, as your phrase "or something", tacitly admitted!
David
PS How do you pronounce your nickname?