Parapsychology and alternative medicine forum

Part of parapsychology articles and blog


Go Back   Parapsychology and alternative medicine forums of mind-energy.net > Parapsychology and psi abilties > Skeptiko Podcast

Skeptiko Podcast The Official discussions forum of skeptiko.com podcast

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 02:52 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: belgium
Posts: 66
Default which form of psi is concidered to be the most evidence based ?

hello , everyone

I concider myself to be a skeptic.
I am new to posting on forums , and also fairly new to the viewpoints from the "other" side .
Alex's show is my only source on the "believer" side ( please correct me if i use jargon that is misplaced )
The show , although i often disagree , is well made and always interresting
So i guess i want to establish som sort of baseline
are staring experiments concidered to be valid ?
I often hear presentiment discribed as being proven .
...
is there any concencus about this in your community ?

please let me know what you think

Last edited by sparky; 12-01-2009 at 05:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 07:21 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,742
Default

I'd recommend Dean Radin's 'Entangled Minds' book .... nice Christmas present

His book goes through these ....

Dream Telepathy : 47 studies, 1027 sessions
Odds against chance of 22,000,000,000 to 1

Ganzfeld Telepathy 88 studies, 3145 sessions
Odds against chance of 29,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1

Detection of being stared at 65 studies, 34,097 sessions
Odds against chance of 8.5 x 10^46 to 1

Detection of distant Intention 40 studies, 1055 sessions
Odds against chance of 1000 to 1

Unconscious detection of being stared at 15 studies, 379 sessions
Odds against chance of 100 to 1

Dice PK 169 Studies , 2.6 million tries
Odds against chance of 2.6 x 10^76 to 1

RNG PK 595 Studies , 1.1 billion random events
Odds against chance of 3052 to 1

All the above take into account potential selective reporting biases using trim and fill algorithm.

Combining the above psi studies produces odds against chance of ....
13000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 to 1

I might have missed missed or added an extra '0' there .... you get the picture though .... as Radin would say 'something interesting is occurring' ...

Nor does the above include Presentiment, which again a meta-analysis would definitely, currently, be significant

Above Information from Dean Radin's 'Entangled Minds' Book. Also you can watch his video on You Tube ....
YouTube - "Science and the taboo of psi" with Dean Radin

Now that is only lab based evidence.... weak effects mounting to astronomical odds against chance using ordinary people not particularly claiming to be psychic....

Last edited by Open Mind; 12-01-2009 at 08:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 07:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,742
Default

I should also point out that 'Skeptic' organizations will try to rubbish these claims .... when reading their side of the debate, bear this in mind ....

Randi's 1 million challenge
Number of scientific experiments capable of detecting weaker effects = Zero

Number of claimants tested in an experiment = Average 2 preliminary tests per year (estimate of less than 30 tests for 1 million challange) *

Number of failed applications that never reached an experiment = estimate well over 400

Percentage of applicants being tested = less than 5%

How close to chance expectation? 'far below chance' *

Amount of attempted replications of parapsychology lab claims = none

*According to the words of 'Kramer' in the JREF forum - JREF/Randi's former 1 Million Dollar Challenge Manager in 2005

Skeptic Organization CSI, formerly called CSICOP
Number of scientific studies in their 30+ years existence capable of replicating parapsychological effects = None
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Open Mind
Combining the above psi studies produces odds against chance of ....
13000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 to 1
We're already abusing meta-analysis pretty seriously, but this certainly wins the prize. Let's combine completely unrelated studies and come up with a really big number.

I don't buy any of it. I think there are many different reasons why the protocols are flawed, the statistical analysis is flawed, the file drawer is being ignored, meta-analysis is being abused, people are cheating, and so forth. But then there are those really big numbers that sound so impressive.

I'm waiting for the fall-out technology.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
I don't buy any of it.
~~ Paul
Paul you should ....don't donate all your money to skeptic organizations!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 303
Default

Just sticking to those areas I have some resources about...

Quote:
Ganzfeld Telepathy 88 studies, 3145 sessions
Odds against chance of 29,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1


No inclusion criteria. Merely a collection of the most famous (ie, most successful) experiments.

Detection of being stared at 65 studies, 34,097 sessions
Odds against chance of 8.5 x 10^46 to 1


This includes data using Sheldrake’s random sheets, with feedback. Beirman has already demonstrated a simple learning technique can give the same results as those reported.

Detection of distant Intention 40 studies, 1055 sessions
Odds against chance of 1000 to 1


“Remote Intention On Electrodermal Acnvtiy: Two Meta-Analyses”, Stefan Schmidt, Rainer Schneider, Jessica Utts, Harald Walach
“ The authors found a small mean effect size of d= 0.11, which was highly significant (p = .001).
This finding is undermined by a best-evidence synthesis of 7 studies with the highest methodological standard, which show a smaller, nonsignificant mean effect size (d = .05). [...] After a correction for sampling error, it yielded a mean effect size of d = 0.13 (p = .01)”


RNG PK 595 Studies , 1.1 billion random events
Odds against chance of 3052 to 1


“On the false hypothesis of PSI-mediated Mean-Shift in Tests with Random Generators”, Pallikari
“The first thing we notice is that it converges to 0.5 for very large study sizes, which is the effect size expected by chance, suggesting no micro-PK mean shifting mechanism underway. The second thing to notice is that it is not symmetrical.
There are more data on the right hand side, on the side of successes than the left hand side, the side of failures. The database is biased. An attempt to estimate the statistical average of all these scores will bring it to a value above 0.5 quite different from the true effect size where the funnel plot converges, i.e. 0.5."
Personally, I think the answer to the question in the first post is presentiment.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ersby
Personally, I think the answer to the question in the first post is presentiment.
Ten years ago we would have said Ganzfeld. Ten years from now we'll be saying something new.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,827
Default

I'm really leery of anything Sheldrake does. I think he is a sloppy experimenter.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 12:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
I'm really leery of anything Sheldrake does. I think he is a sloppy experimenter.

~~ Paul
Can you be specific - I mean I tend to feel people say that about RS because he gets large effect sizes (by devising emotionally relevant experiments), and people don't know how else to criticise him!

I think I would vote for Rupert Sheldrake and/or Dean Radin!

David
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2009, 01:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Can you be specific - I mean I tend to feel people say that about RS because he gets large effect sizes (by devising emotionally relevant experiments), and people don't know how else to criticise him!
Well, there was the clock synchronization leak in telephone telepathy experiments. On the same subject, we have this video:

YouTube - Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy

but the paper contradicts it and leaves out important information. Some of the problem might be due to sloppy video editing.

I just don't get warm and fuzzy thinking of his methodology.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links - register to remove ads
Reply

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0

Ad Management by RedTyger