Skeptical paper about PSI

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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. l

Yes, but at least they average out over a run of experiments.

Forget ψ - suppose you went for a fitness check, and they guy looked at you and said "Hmm - well, I am not expecting too much, but...." it might stimulate you to do better, or de-motivate you to do badly, but it would be unlikely to have no effect.

Can't you use a UNICODE editor!

David

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You don't have to take it [psi] 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.

Well, people have claimed that the strongest evidence for psi emerges in spontaneous real life situations where there are strong emotions or human needs involved, such as in crises and so forth. If we hypothesize that that is the case, then the problem is: how do we reproduce such conditions in laboratory studies?

People have raised the issue that if laboratory studies of psi over some period of time don't show results that give unassailable proof of the existence of psi, then it makes sense to stop looking. But if it is true that strong evidence of psi comes out only in spontaneous real life situations, then the anecdotal reports of striking experiences of psi are not likely to stop.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

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

David

Ah, that is just one of the many mysterious, elusive qualities of ψ

I'm only kidding of course but lets see if my quote works.

[joki]

I recommend to read the blog from Dean Radin (deanradin.blogspot.com/). He comments the paper and raises some interesting points. The thread is called:
Japanese translation of Entangled Minds.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by joki

I recommend to read the blog from Dean Radin (deanradin.blogspot.com/). He comments the paper and raises some interesting points. The thread is called:
Japanese translation of Entangled Minds.

Thanks Joki.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Yes, but at least they average out over a run of experiments.

Only if the subjects are somehow randomly selected for belief/disbelief in psi.

Can't you use a UNICODE editor!

I use a programmable editor in which I've invested 15 years of programming. I ain't switching now!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Mike

Well, people have claimed that the strongest evidence for psi emerges in spontaneous real life situations where there are strong emotions or human needs involved, such as in crises and so forth. If we hypothesize that that is the case, then the problem is: how do we reproduce such conditions in laboratory studies?

We can't, but that's just way too convenient.

There are so many psychological reasons why people are lousy at evaluating supposedly amazing events in their lives. I simply can't get excited about it.

People have raised the issue that if laboratory studies of psi over some period of time don't show results that give unassailable proof of the existence of psi, then it makes sense to stop looking. But if it is true that strong evidence of psi comes out only in spontaneous real life situations, then the anecdotal reports of striking experiences of psi are not likely to stop.

Nor are the anecdotal reports of seeing the Virgin Mary in toast. I don't know how to approach this sort of data.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've read the Introduction section of the paper twice. What is it that makes people think the authors have an agenda?

Originally Posted by Dyson

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

~~ Paul

[joki]

"I've read the Introduction section of the paper twice. What is it that makes people think the authors have an agenda?"

Oh yes, they have. Kosslyn worked with parapsychologists together and is known for his PSI skeptical view.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Only if the subjects are somehow randomly selected for belief/disbelief in psi.l

Maybe this thread has got too convoluted. What I meant was that particular relations, phases of the moon, etc. would average away - at least to some extent - but the experimenter is probably a constant over the duration of the series of experiments - so you want an honest but favourable one.

David