Skeptical paper about PSI

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by joki

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

And that invalidates the experiment? So much for 95% of all psi experiments.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

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.

I agree that the experimenter is a strong constant, but there might be other constants, too. For example, if most of the subjects believe in psi, that is a constant, and a more emotional one.

I don't know why the experimenter has to come prebelieving in psi. The evidence for the experimenter effect is pretty funky. Next we'll be saying that a psychic has to have a dead brother or a remote viewer has to have 20/20 vision. We're assuming things about the process that we do not know.

~~ Paul

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

Right, everyone has a bias and that doesn't necessarily negate the study. Its just one study though, one study cannot prove the null hypothesis. The researchers should do more experiments to make sure they are not falling victim to the experimenter bias effect which is not just a problem in parapsychology btw.

The Ganzfeild is the simplest psi experiment that has been replicated over and over with an overall positive result. I agree that its too small effect size to be really compelling but I fee that in context with documented ESP reports like those of Stephen A. Schwartz and just the whole of parapsychology in general, its enough for me to seriously consider psi. I'm not a hardcore believer, if a skeptic can negate it all in a way thats not so open to interpretation than I'll side with them but right now I feel the burden of proof is more or less on the Skeptics side.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Dyson

Right, everyone has a bias and that doesn't necessarily negate the study. Its just one study though, one study cannot prove the null hypothesis. The researchers should do more experiments to make sure they are not falling victim to the experimenter bias effect which is not just a problem in parapsychology btw.

Agreed.

I'm not a hardcore believer, if a skeptic can negate it all in a way thats not so open to interpretation than I'll side with them but right now I feel the burden of proof is more or less on the Skeptics side.

I have some burden to prove what? That the anomalies found in psi experiments are not what? I agree that they are anomalies. What more burden do I have?

~~ Paul

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

I have some burden to prove what? That the anomalies found in psi experiments are not what? I agree that they are anomalies. What more burden do I have?

Well, you certainly have no burden to claim that the burden is on the proponent when there is always claimants on both sides of an issue.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

Well, you certainly have no burden to claim that the burden is on the proponent when there is always claimants on both sides of an issue.

Of course the burden is on the proponent. Otherwise we'd have to accept every lame-o idea anyone ever proposes. Once the idea becomes accepted due to hard work on the part of the proponents, then, if someone comes along rejecting the idea, the burden is on him.

It's not really a burden in the normal sense of the word. It's just the way things work: The status quo is maintained until the evidence against it is so compelling that the majority of scientists decide to change the status quo.

~~ Paul

[DysonSphere]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Agreed.


I have some burden to prove what? That the anomalies found in psi experiments are not what? I agree that they are anomalies. What more burden do I have?

~~ Paul

Well, not you in particular, Skeptical scientists. That the anomalies are not paranormal. A lot of criticisms don't have a lot to go on in my opinion. I think to settle the issue more creative tests are needed as well as some helpful support from the critics.