Bashing the skeptics

[David Bailey]

Rudism,

Most ψ experiments involve people, and therapeutic drug research is notoriously difficult because people react differently to a given drug, and also show placebo effects which crucially depend on whether the experimenter believes the treatment will work - that is why, at great expense, these experiments have to use double-blind procedures involving huge numbers of patients!

If parapsychological research could be performed on the scale of drug trials so as to average out over an almost unknown number of variables, perhaps they would achieve the (only modest) repeatability of such experiments.

All you are doing is putting impossible conditions on ψ research, because you don't believe any of it is true!

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

All you are doing is putting impossible conditions on ψ research, because you don't believe any of it is true!

If animals (including humans) had an organ we didn't know the purpose of, and if we could detect the field Sheldrake (for example) is talking about (and know about the nature of this unknown field, and how it can brought back informations from the future for example in order to explain precognition), so maybe we could speculate that the organ is taping into this field and extracting from it some informations. And start doing research about that.

But here the situation is: we don't have any anatomic clue in favor of the existence of an organ like that. We have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, the hands for touching, the tongue for testing, but NOTHING for psi. Of course there is the brain, but there is NOTHING in the brain that could be claimed as being able to detect anything (except trough sensory input from the senses we know).

And claiming that the brain is like a radio detcting "vibrations" of somekind is just plain crap.

So absolutely no physiological ground for psi whatsoever.

And of course we can't detect the field Sheldrake claims is used for psi.

So no physiological basis for detecting a field that we can't detect by other means, so that we can't be sure that field even exist in the first place!!!

So hell we scientifics have obvious reasons to be skeptical. After that he comes with some statistic anomalies about dogs wandering about in houses, but that doesn't prove his theory. And statistic anomalies, well you know "Correlations is not causation".

At the end of the day, Sheldrake's theory is pure speculation...

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

If parapsychological research could be performed on the scale of drug trials so as to average out over an almost unknown number of variables, perhaps they would achieve the (only modest) repeatability of such experiments.

All you are doing is putting impossible conditions on ψ research, because you don't believe any of it is true!

Them's the breaks in science--the requirements to get in are high for a reason.

Besides, in the absence of large-scale experiments, we can look at examples in the real-world for the effects of psi. Take my earlier Vegas example. Casinos carefully calculate the house advantage on their games to be small enough that players are still attracted to them, but large enough that the house will make money in the long run. Even the tiniest hint of psi in players would throw a monkeywrench into the works (or, at the very least, result in profits lower than the house would expect in the long run) which definitely would have been noticed by now--not only do the casinos keep meticulous records for themselves, but they are overseen by various gaming commissions and state boards to make sure nothing shady is going on.

The fact that there is no actual evidence where we would expect to see it (besides the occasional anecdote), coupled with what Venom pointed out (no plausible physiological mechanism) points to psi being a dead end. I'm open-minded enough to grant that it's possible that the evidence and common sense are wrong, and someone will eventually prove something--but it's going to have to be better evidence than a busload of statistical analysis applied to the results of an experiment that can only be sporadically replicated. Maybe that's being mean to psi and parapsychological researchers, but really, it's had hundreds, maybe thousands of years to prove itself using the scientific method.

It's unreasonable to expect the scientific community to welcome weak, unreplicable evidence in support of something so implausible with open arms and fresh-baked cookies. There comes a point with any theory where it is discarded as a lame duck because the evidence has so overwhelmingly failed to support it--psi entered this stage long ago. It's going to take some really compelling (read: clear and replicable) evidence to combat the odds against it. The current work being done in parapsychology simply isn't generating the necessary results.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Venom

We have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, the hands for touching, the tongue for testing, but NOTHING for psi. Of course there is the brain, but there is NOTHING in the brain that could be claimed as being able to detect anything...

...except the neurons of course

We know that certain magnetic field patterns can produce hallucinations without acting via sense organs. This is just one instance of the environment directly interacting with brain activity. Psi is probably not an electromagnetic force, but it may just as easily be explained by an unknown environmental factor interacting directly with processes going on in the brain. No 'sense organ' needs to be involved, unless the brain as a whole is labelled as such in this context.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Rudism

Besides, in the absence of large-scale experiments, we can look at examples in the real-world for the effects of psi. Take my earlier Vegas example. Casinos carefully calculate the house advantage on their games to be small enough that players are still attracted to them, but large enough that the house will make money in the long run. Even the tiniest hint of psi in players would throw a monkeywrench into the works (or, at the very least, result in profits lower than the house would expect in the long run) which definitely would have been noticed by now--not only do the casinos keep meticulous records for themselves, but they are overseen by various gaming commissions and state boards to make sure nothing shady is going on.

This casino argument is a tricky one.

How would we know if casino operators have been noticing a slightly lower profit than expected by theory?

And if they have been noticing this slight drop, what kind of thing would they put it down to? Would a casino operator think "Ah! Its people controlling the machines with their minds again!" or could they just put it down to a number of normal factors like faulty machines or slightly biased roulette wheels and someone with a very good memory?

Also consider that theories of psi such as Decision Augmentation Theory predict that PK does not operate by skewing the mean but by an operator decision to intiate a 'run' just at the right time. So according to this theory a fruit machine will give out the expected amount over the long run but PK would operate by telling you when to put your money in and get a payout.

[pacificwhim]

The Vegas argument is completely worthless and I'll tell you why. Extremely successful experimental protocols like the Ganzfeld have shown that psi, which theorists believe to be a primarily unconscious ability anyway, functions best in a situation where sensory input is minimized--damping down the noise, so to speak. Well, what do you have in Vegas but sensory OVERLOAD? Noise, light, chips, wheels, waitresses in short skirts, booze, music and so on. Hardly an environment conducive to shutting out external distraction. I'm a pretty good poker player and I have a really hard time concentrating and shutting it all out when I'm in Vegas. So as a litmus test for psi, it's very weak.

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

How would we know if casino operators have been noticing a slightly lower profit than expected by theory?

I'm sure the casino operators would be quite angry about it, suspecting cheating employees and whatnot. They would talk to other casino operators and find that it was a universal thing. Scientists would be notified, analysis would be run, and we would have mainstream evidence of the existence of psi that cannot be accounted for by any other means.

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Also consider that theories of psi such as Decision Augmentation Theory predict that PK does not operate by skewing the mean but by an operator decision to intiate a 'run' just at the right time. So according to this theory a fruit machine will give out the expected amount over the long run but PK would operate by telling you when to put your money in and get a payout.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this theory would say that the results of psi would be indistinguishable from what we'd expect even if it didn't exist? Wouldn't that mean any parapsychological experiment that's looking for statistical anomalies is a waste of time?

Originally Posted by pacificwhim

The Vegas argument is completely worthless and I'll tell you why...

It's a common practice in any pseudoscientific field to come up with excuses for why its effects fail in certain situations where we would expect to see it work. This doesn't help its case much, and in fact almost certainly does more to damage it.

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Rudism

It's a common practice in any pseudoscientific field to come up with excuses for why its effects fail in certain situations where we would expect to see it work.

How can you be so sure there are not any psi effects at casinos? Have you done statistical analyses at casinos yourself? Have you interviewed casino managers?

If I remember it correctly Dean Radin did do an analysis of psi effects at casinos and did find an effect. I don't know if his calculations were valid, I'm not a scientist, but on the other hand, I haven't seen any research of this kind from skeptics. So on what basis are you claiming that there is no psi at work at casinos? You are only speculating, saying that if psi were real casino managers should have told the world by now that this is the case, that they should have let scientists conduct analyses and tests, and so one.

You're the one talking about doing science and not basing your arguments on speculation and anecdotes etc, so why do you invent all these scenarios?

[David Bailey]

Rudism,

There are some situations in which ψ may be operating in the real world:

Someone looked at the statistics of seat occupancy on planes and aircraft that went on to crash. It would seem that these doomed journeys have fewer passengers.

Very few animals were killed in the Asian tsunami because they all headed inland in time to save themselves - i.e. before the tsunami appeared.

Animals often behave in odd ways before earthquakes and other cataclysmic events. The Chinese are even looking at this as a means of earthquake prediction, and have performed one successful city evacuation:

Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?

Dogs and cats seem to know when their owners are coming home.....

David

[Rudism]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

How can you be so sure there are not any psi effects at casinos? Have you done statistical analyses at casinos yourself? Have you interviewed casino managers?

First off, I'm not the one trying to prove or disprove psi--I'm just expressing my opinion that there's not enough evidence to convince me (an opinion shared by, I would guess, a majority of people in the scientific community). Secondly, most casinos are publicly traded companies. If there was anything dicey going on with their profits, it wouldn't remain a secret from the public or the licensing boards for long (or from psi proponents chomping at the bit to point out any statistical anomalies in such things as evidence for psi).

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Rudism,

There are some situations in which ψ may be operating in the real world:

Someone looked at the statistics of seat occupancy on planes and aircraft that went on to crash. It would seem that these doomed journeys have fewer passengers.

Very few animals were killed in the Asian tsunami because they all headed inland in time to save themselves - i.e. before the tsunami appeared.

Animals often behave in odd ways before earthquakes and other cataclysmic events. The Chinese are even looking at this as a means of earthquake prediction, and have performed one successful city evacuation:

Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?

Dogs and cats seem to know when their owners are coming home.....

David

Even if each of these things are true, there are non-psi-related explanations that should be ruled out before they can be accepted as evidence for psi. Maybe there's some reason that lower-occupancy planes are more prone to have accidents (ie, correlation is not proof of anything). How do we know for sure that certain animals aren't just more naturally sensitive to changes in the weather or other possible physical indicators of things like tsunamis and earthquakes?

When I go out, my dog is at the window every time I come home. I can easily explain this, though, because I see her go to the window every time she hears a car coming (even from a few blocks away). When my wife goes out, however, she'll often head over to the window around 30 minutes before my wife gets back. There's no way my previous explanation could account for that (even a dog couldn't hear a car that's 30 minutes away... sometimes my wife isn't even in her car by that time). If I were less scrupulous, I might be the sort who shares anecdotes of my psychic dog at parties and such. Sadly, the explanation is a bit more mundane--usually my wife will phone me anywhere within 10-45 minutes before she gets back, and my dog has picked up on this cue to prompt her to the window early. The point being, sure it may seem like paranormal stuff is going on with animals, and there are many anecdotes to support that idea, but I know how easy it is to be fooled by the clever little buggers to accept this as any kind of useful evidence.

It's important to first try to attribute any anomalies to things that can be explained by our current theories and scientific models (ie, apply Occam's Razor). And even in cases where we can't figure it out, that doesn't mean psi automatically wins as an explanation... there is no dichotomy. There may still be other non-psi-related variables that we just can't know about in a post-hoc analysis. This might also be a problem with the casino example, but it would be harder to avoid in that situation, since the only laws and principles at work would be those of math and statistics, which we have a pretty solid understanding of.