Skeptical paper about PSI

[Open Mind]

Guys, I must be an idiot (ok, you can nod in agreement if you must ) how on earth did you download that paper, I want to read it.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

No one has suggested? The experimenter effect has been used as an A-1 excuse for awhile now, and it's not even well-defined. People have suggested all sorts of nutsy things.
~~ Paul

Surely the point is that if ψ is real, so is the experimenter effect, because he/she is there as part of the setup and potentially communicating with the subject. You can scoff at it if you don't believe if ψ, but that is assuming what you want to prove.

What I would like to know, is just how sensitive the fMRI technique is - maybe Joki can tell us best. I mean, if someone's mind wanders a bit in the scanner ("what am I going to eat tonight?") can the operator instantly tell, or do they average the data and hope that the patient/subject remained focussed most of the time? I mean, is it even reasonable to expect to be able to see mental events at this level of detail. Nobody suggests that ESP signals arrive like an instant message!

David

[NinjaKitty7]

Open_Mind,

I had to wait a bit until the entire .pfd to be checked and cleared of viruses. Afterwards, the download link appeared below the article description. Hope this helps.

[DysonSphere]

Right off the bat I'm reading this paper it has an agenda. "Lets try and disprove psi phenomena". Thats bad science.

"But what of the truism that one cannot affirm the null
hypothesis? We note that some null results should be
Moulton and Kosslyn 189
taken more seriously than others. For example, take the
famous Michelson and Morley (1887) experiment, which
showed no difference in the speed of light moving in
different directions; these results had a profound influence
on theories in physics. Or consider the possibility
of water on Mars. If a set of close-up images of its surface
failed to capture frozen lakes, few would accept
the nonexistence of Martian water. Yet if a planetwide
analysis of its subsurface soil content failed to show
telltale signs of water, most would accept the null
hypothesis of a Martian desert."

Do these researchers know the difference between a hard or soft science? Apparently not. Lets reiterate it one more time: human beings are more complex and variable than inanimate objects. This is a false analogy.


One study, especially one in which the researchers have an obvious bias, is not going to discount the positive evidence for psi.

I think this paper just raises the all important issue. Like Wiseman said if you keep searching for unicorns and can't find any when do you stop looking? If there are no conditions that consistently show positive evidence for psi overall then packing up and going home isn't unreasonable.

Thats the trouble for the Skeptics who keep repeating that psi hasn't been replicated and can't be; its bullshit.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Surely the point is that if ? is real, so is the experimenter effect, because he/she is there as part of the setup and potentially communicating with the subject. You can scoff at it if you don't believe if ?, but that is assuming what you want to prove.

If we're going to assume the experimenter effect is real,* then we're going to open up the whole "distant prayer" can of worms. Note only is the experimenter part of the setup, but so is subject's mother and the dead uncle of the statistician. It's an unfalsifiable excuse for failure.

What I would like to know, is just how sensitive the fMRI technique is - maybe Joki can tell us best. I mean, if someone's mind wanders a bit in the scanner ("what am I going to eat tonight?") can the operator instantly tell, or do they average the data and hope that the patient/subject remained focussed most of the time? I mean, is it even reasonable to expect to be able to see mental events at this level of detail. Nobody suggests that ESP signals arrive like an instant message!

The results are averaged, but I don't know how sensitive it is. You're right, nobody suggests that ESP signals arrive like an IM. The problem is that no one can suggest a damn thing about how they might arrive.

~~ Paul


* Note that the classic studies on experimenter effect are the Wiseman & Schlitz studies, but, unfortunately, the third study was negative for both investigators. I predict we won't talk about the effect in 10 years.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dyson

Thats the trouble for the Skeptics who keep repeating that psi hasn't been replicated and can't be; its bullshit.

What is the standard replicable experiment for psi?

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

What I would like to know, is just how sensitive the fMRI technique is - maybe Joki can tell us best. I mean, if someone's mind wanders a bit in the scanner ("what am I going to eat tonight?") can the operator instantly tell, or do they average the data and hope that the patient/subject remained focussed most of the time?

Mostly the latter. But it depends on how far the participant deviates from the actual task. For example, if the task is predominantly an object recognition task and, say, areas previously implicated in motor planning light up then the experimenter might suspect that the participant wasn't performing the task properly. But then again, this is quite mirky waters because it might be hypothesised that motor planning is involved somehow in aiding object recognition. I'm not sure how, but you get the idea...

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

If we're going to assume the experimenter effect is real,* then we're going to open up the whole "distant prayer" can of worms. Note only is the experimenter part of the setup, but so is subject's mother and the dead uncle of the statistician. It's an unfalsifiable excuse for failure..

Except that nobody is arguing ad absurdum like that! Obviously you have to stop somewhere - think of it like a perturbation expansion - to first order, the receiver in an ESP experiment is potentially in contact with the sender and the experimenter! Hopefully the mothers, phases of the moon, and deceased uncles will have a smaller effects and also average out over multiple subjects. The experimenter is probably a constant in a whole set of experiments.

The only important consideration is to ensure that the friendly experimenter does not cheat!

I know I have said it before, but you have to take ψ as real in order to attempt to disprove it!

BTW, I wonder why it is that whenever anyone quotes anything of mine, the 'ψ' comes out as '?'!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dyson

Right off the bat I'm reading this paper it has an agenda. "Lets try and disprove psi phenomena".

Your impression that they have an agenda does not negate the study. I have the impression that 95% of the psi experiments every conducted were done so under the agenda that psi must exist.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Except that nobody is arguing ad absurdum like that! Obviously you have to stop somewhere - think of it like a perturbation expansion - to first order, the receiver in an ESP experiment is potentially in contact with the sender and the experimenter! Hopefully the mothers, phases of the moon, and deceased uncles will have a smaller effects and also average out over multiple subjects. The experimenter is probably a constant in a whole set of experiments.

Come on David, this is just an assumption on your part, because you know that if the distant healing extravaganza is opened up here, the whole project goes to hell. We have no idea how psi works. Therefore we have no idea what affects it and what doesn't.

I propose that the subject's spouse has a lot more effect on the outcome than the experimenter does, since s/he has a greater emotional tie. And if the experimenter has an effect, then Wiseman and Schlitz should have cancelled each other out. Surely it doesn't matter if the experimenter is in the same room, since this is psi we're talking about.

The only important consideration is to ensure that the friendly experimenter does not cheat!

Or the unfriendly one, for that matter. I don't know if DysonSphere agrees.

I know I have said it before, but you have to take ? as real in order to attempt to disprove it!

You don't have to take it as real, you just have to follows the rules that produce the affect. Too bad we have absolutely no idea what the rules are for psi.

I know I have said it before, but you have to take the Easter Bunny as real in order to attempt to disprove it.

BTW, I wonder why it is that whenever anyone quotes anything of mine, the '?' comes out as '?'!

I copy the text into my text editor, which probably assumes a different encoding.

~~ Paul