What I've Learned From Skeptics Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, James Alcock and Jam

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

If the scoring system is blind, I can't see how anyone could bias their ratings in favour of the genuine reading over the control ones.

Hi Ersby, nice to see you back here. I certainly wouldn't put you in the category of the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair, you have read much of parapsychology and psychical research literature, you know the real debate is over weak effects and if these are real.

Correct me if I'm wrong ........

5 psychics give 5 readings to 5 unknown recipients without sensory clues. Now lets look at the extremes of bias ....

The point is that a 5 cynical recipients might not score properly and think something like 'none of this crap fits me much at all, bloody idiot mediums, I'll just choose this worst funny one, I have no dog but I had a plastic dog as a child, near enough match'

Now if you run this experiment over and over again often enough the outcome should be close to chance expectation, even if the mediums is giving information slightly better fitting to targets?

Now lets imagine 5 unbiased recipients just judging it as best they can. If the medium can truly give vague information that slightly better fitting the target recipient better it can show up to be statisically significant over a long enough trial.

Now lets imagine, 5 totally biased psychic believers (the sort that makes anything and everything fit perfectly) . They will try to manipulate any of the messages to fit but ultimately (I think) they will still have choose the one they feel fits better rather than choose the worst fit. So even if they mark worse than the unbiased, I think the effect should still show up over a long enough trial

Psychical experiments should IMHO use open minded skeptics or believers and generally avoid cynics (to last), not just for the above reason but due to longstanding claims of sheep, goat and experimenter effects. The fundamental thing is to stop cheating and remove sensory clues.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

you know the real debate is over weak effects and if these are real.

This is not entirely true, Sheldrake's work with dogs anticipating the return of their owners is not a weak effect - in fact it is strong enough to show up even in informal settings.

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

This is not entirely true, Sheldrake's work with dogs anticipating the return of their owners is not a weak effect - in fact it is strong enough to show up even in informal settings.

David

Good point David but the only way to get the skeptics to look at the data fairly is to consider weak effects first If they don't, they set the bar too high in a short experiments and most experiments can be rejected and stamped 'failure' even if somewhat successful e.g. Demkina

I'm sure someone like Steven Novella would counter that fortune tellers are ripping people off (I agree most are) and that Demkina is making a dangerous claim if she thinks she can diagnose medical conditions (yes she is less reliable than a medical scan for sure) so they use political arguments to raise the bar as high as they can. They aren't interested in weaker psi, they don't believe it by default and every claim of a stronger effect is 'nothing but something else' unless it constantly repeats but these seem rare and erratic.

Yes I do think Sheldrake could be right and animals have stronger telepathy.
Sheldrake says somewhere that he might expect telepathy to be stronger within groups, pack of animals, flocks, social insects, etc. but he goes further suggests telepathy works best between friends and a key element might be the love between the dog and the owner. So perhaps telepathy is like a group effect in ways, if ones introduces more skeptics or hostile competitive environments, perhaps this weakens the effect ....... so lets keep the bar set not too high.

If dogs can produce stronger telepathy consistently , I fear for Randi's modesty

Yes, I do think stronger psi exists (very rarely or at least noticeably) it is almost impossible to read some of the reports over 130 years of psychical research and conclude it was all fraud or error, it also almost impossible to get a skeptic to read it before they read the biased 'skeptic dictionary' version.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I don't have any books on Joe Nickell, an oversight perhaps, do these publish his own research, protocol and statistical outcomes? Or is it more just revision of others claims or like the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair?

Joe Nickell is publishing is own investigations.

He did a lot (really a lot) of field investigations about haunted houses, relics, and debunking famous psychics.

What he's doing is field investigations (he was a detective before becoming a CSI fellow), and I think it's also a very important job. If you want to explain why people think that a house is haunted, you have to go at that house and look for plausible explanations. Same for relics or psychics. Joe Nickell is always stressing the importance of field work, and I completely agree with him on that point (that's why I go and interview ufo witness for exemple, or I go and look for myself at crop circles).

I think what he's doing is great, and it's a good example that skeptics do a lot of actual investigations, and that Alexis was completely wrong in his podcast claiming otherwise.

like the pseudo-skeptics at the psychic fair?

The skeptic team did a great job at the psychic fair. When you hear the stupid protocol Alexis is proposing (go to 3 psychics, have 3 readings, scoring "objectively" and so on), and pretending no skeptic would do that, it was great that the SGU was refuting is claim the week he posted it on his podcast. Skeptics go the psychic and have readings all the time. They're not just easily convince by cold reading and hot reading. Alexis is just an "easy believer": he doesn't need a lot for convincing him of the reality of anything. A few testimonies, a charismatic speaker... I mean a guy that believe that a woman can hear the voice of animals in her head... Well, that speaks for himself from my point of view...

[David Bailey]

Open Mind,

The really inexcusable thing about the Demkina test was that not only did they set the bar high, but one of the subjects had a plate in his head, but was not otherwise ill. They really fixed that demonstration good and proper!

David

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Venom

I mean a guy that believe that a woman can hear the voice of animals in her head... Well, that speaks for himself from my point of view...

And contrariwise a guy who automatically discounts the possibility speaks volumes about himself as well.



Tiger

[Venom]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

And contrariwise a guy who automatically discounts the possibility speaks volumes about himself as well.

I'm not "automatically discounting the possibilty", I have now more than a century of psychological and psychiatric researchs (about hearing voices in your head) to back me up. And if you think she can really hear animals speacking to her, she can always apply for the Million Dollar Challenge, that would be fun...

Hearing voices in your head is not a very unusual claim. Almost all schizophrenics claims that. Should we test all schizophrenic people for psi-abilities?

ps: I don't say this lady is schizophrenic, has I previously mentionned, I think shit fit really nicely the Fantasy-Prone Personality profile, discover by Wilson & Barber at the beginning of the 1980. But of course, in the podcast, Alexis didn't even mention that. I'm not even sure he knows about this personality structure, and it's importance for explaining that kind of claims.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Venom

I have now more than a century of psychological and psychiatric researchs (about hearing voices in your head) to back me up.

Wow... and here I thought I was an old fogie at 55

Btw, do you understand the distinction between an explanation and a fact? Psych is a "fuzzy study", with no guaranteed outcomes, not a single one. Not that it isn't work worth taking note of nor that it doesn't have value, but come back when psychologists and psychiatrists are bound by the same "no product, no pay" performance standards as, for instance, electricians or carpenters.

Until then it's nothing more than "I think this is how it works", imo, regardless of the stature of the proponent.



Tiger

[ktb973]

30 episodes is the same thing as doing 30 years of research, as many skeptics have done.

Alex, your martyrdom for the paranormal will not be forgotten. Be well my friend...I will see you on the other side.

Unless I don't.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Hi Ersby, nice to see you back here.

Thanks.

Now lets look at the extremes of bias ....

Okay, but let's simplify things. Just two readings. One of which is full of platitudes which is pretty much applicable to everyone, while the other is full of inaccurate but specific guesses, amongst which is one very good hit. Are you saying the cynic would choose the second while the believer would chose the first? If so, I'd say that the cynic has chosen the one that is probably from the psychic, while the believer has chosen the cold-reader.

(All of which depends on the styles of the particular psychic and cold-reader, of course.)