Chris Carter's "Fall of the House of Skeptics"

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by fls

I don't think what skeptics have done has much of anything to do with what scientists see when they look at the results. When scientists see studies performed without direct controls, odd outcome measures which give false results due to randomization, liberal analysis methods (such as multiple testing or one-tailed tests) which increase the propensity to get 'positive' results, a dependency on notoriously unreliable information such as recollections made after the answers have been given, etc., they recognize the reductions in reliability and validity all by themselves.

Very, very few scientists even look at the evidence for psi - they simply absorb a pre-digested version of the story from skeptics. A scientist can have impeccable credentials - such as Brian Josephson - and if he gets interested in psi, he is instantly regarded with suspicion!

I think you also underestimate the extent to which statistics are abused by orthodox scientists - I remember reading an article about the Bonferroni principle (which I can't put my hands on), and it listed a whole series of things that had been 'established' without regard to that principle. I was amazed to see that the environmental toxicity of bisphenol A was included in that list! (Can that really be true?)

BTW, The Bonferroni principle is best explained by this cartoon:

Significant explain xkcd

I don't know. That is odd. Maybe I was just looking for some variety. "Psi" can be substituted without changing the meaning.

To me, reincarnation is equivalent to psi in that it implies that consciousness is not what it is normally assumed to be.

I agree. Focussing on what skeptics think of psi misses the point. If we really want to understand why psi isn't regarded as an established phenomenon, we need to understand how science evaluates evidence.

We also need to understand the huge part that fads and fashion play in science. Lewis Walpert famously turned his back on Rupert Sheldrake's slides in a public debate - would you describe that as evaluating the evidence?

An expectation bias gives results identical to Radin's precognition experiments, the possibility of which isn't ruled out by the design. Etc.

Linda

Dean Radin checked for anticipation bias, which is easy to do - you just look at strings of calm pictures within the data - and didn't find any. This fact doesn't prevent his experiment being dismissed for ever more because nobody bothers to follow through!

This anticipation effect is fascinating, but is presumably not checked for in orthodox experiments that follow the same pattern as the presentiment experiment. I mean, if anticipation were the explanation for his experiment, you would think that at least he would be used as an example of a possible pitfall in similar experiments!

The fascinating thing, is that at first sight, it would appear that anticipation could not influence the experiment at all, any more than a gambler can win by watching for strings of misses and gambling that the next will be a hit - the odds are the same for each throw of the dice, or whatever. The only reason that you do get a small effect seems to be to do with the fact that experiments can only last a finite time - typically 40 images.

Tell me, how would you suggest that Dean Radin eliminates anticipation bias?

David

[fls]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Very, very few scientists even look at the evidence for psi...

Right, like very few scientists even look at the evidence for black holes. Instead what happens is that the credibility of an idea diffuses from those who can and have looked at the evidence through the rest of the relevant field and then through science generally.

....- they simply absorb a pre-digested version of the story from skeptics.

I think you give way too much credit to skeptics. Other than skeptics who are also scientists and can be expected to have an influence on their immediate colleagues, I think most scientists are blissfully unaware of professional skeptics in general. I don't know how accurate this perception is. I just know that I hadn't heard of any of these people and none of their names came up when discussing alt med (medicine's parapsychology) among my colleagues. And even now, when I ask other physicians about James Randi, they mostly haven't heard of him or have only sketchy knowledge of who he is (usually something related to the MDC, Johnny Carson and Uri Gellar).

I think you also underestimate the extent to which statistics are abused by orthodox scientists...

I don't. That is why I am so familiar with all these issues. I already had to learn about them with respect to other fields of science.

To me, reincarnation is equivalent to psi in that it implies that consciousness is not what it is normally assumed to be.

I agree.

We also need to understand the huge part that fads and fashion play in science. Lewis Walpert famously turned his back on Rupert Sheldrake's slides in a public debate - would you describe that as evaluating the evidence?

I think that dramatic public displays aren't representative of the normal activities of science.

Dean Radin checked for anticipation bias, which is easy to do - you just look at strings of calm pictures within the data - and didn't find any.

He did find a positive trend between the number of calm trials preceding an arousing trial and the degree of arousal, of a size which greatly exceeded the effect size attributed to presentiment. It didn't happen to be statistically significant, however statistical significance would not be how you evaluate whether the effect can be ruled-out (you would evaluate the power instead). And we already know that trying to use statistics to rule-out an effect is insensitive when compared to using study designs which reduce/eliminate the possibility of the effect.

Tell me, how would you suggest that Dean Radin eliminates anticipation bias?

David

I don't have any suggestions for him.

Linda

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

Yeah, Carter and Craig don't seem to be referring to science, but to the Court of Public Opinion. Carter's arguments seem to be lawyerly (based on what Arouet has presented), which means that it shouldn't be a surprise that scientists are less impressed than Carter (or Craig or Andy) by the 'evidence'.

Linda

Philosophical arguments and an assessment of the evidence is required. What can be scientifically established is an irrelevance to ones personal judgement as to whether some phenomenon is real. Or at least it ought to be. And public opinion is equally irrelevant.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by fls

I think that dramatic public displays aren't representative of the normal activities of science.

You surely aren't suggesting that he knew something wrong with Sheldrakes papers, and chose to waste this opportunity in favour of a childish gesture!

He did find a positive trend between the number of calm trials preceding an arousing trial and the degree of arousal, of a size which greatly exceeded the effect size attributed to presentiment. It didn't happen to be statistically significant, however statistical significance would not be how you evaluate whether the effect can be ruled-out (you would evaluate the power instead). And we already know that trying to use statistics to rule-out an effect is insensitive when compared to using study designs which reduce/eliminate the possibility of the effect.

I thought he looked for a trend in the arrousal values C_n vs n, where n is the position of a calm image in a run of calm images. Not that he looked at the arousal values X_n - the value of arrousal associated with a disturbing image following a run of calm ones.

I don't have any suggestions for him.

Linda

So you are saying (in effect) that presentiment cannot be tested for in principle. People may get messages from the immedite future, and it is impossible to tell!

This would also rule out a lot of other similar experiments.

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by fls

Scientists in general. Regardless of whether there is a relative handful of proponents, psi is not regarded as an established phenomenon in the way that black holes are (for example).

So what? Neither is love a scientifically established phenomenon, nor the experience of pain, nor the experience of greenness etc. Indeed consciousness as a whole is not an established phenomenon. Would you also reject the existence of consciousness?

You and other skeptics always erroneously suppose that if one cannot scientifically prove something, it therefore necessarily doesn't exist. Can you understand your error?

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

So what? Neither is love a scientifically established phenomenon, nor the experience of pain, nor the experience of greenness etc. Indeed consciousness as a whole is not an established phenomenon. Would you also reject the existence of consciousness?

You and other skeptics always erroneously suppose that if one cannot scientifically prove something, it therefore necessarily doesn't exist. Can you understand your error?

Word!! +1 Hear, hear

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Philosophical arguments and an assessment of the evidence is required. What can be scientifically established is an irrelevance to ones personal judgement as to whether some phenomenon is real. Or at least it ought to be. And public opinion is equally irrelevant.

Ought to be irrelevant? Sure, because personal judgement or experience can never lead you astray. I am not saying not to trust personal judgement when other information is not present - just to understand it's limits like with any other information.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Philosophical arguments and an assessment of the evidence is required. What can be scientifically established is an irrelevance to ones personal judgement as to whether some phenomenon is real. Or at least it ought to be. And public opinion is equally irrelevant.

Carter does present the evidence. That's why he is popular as a psi proponent.

And I am constantly amazed at how completely I am misunderstood. I do not claim public opinion as a reason for accepting psi.

However when sampling demonstrates that around 80% of the world's population claims to have had a psychic experience, we are not in the realm of opinion, but rather reporting, which is not at all a subtle difference.

Psychologists have tried to explain this away for fifty years with no success. You can demonstrate that people can be fooled, but you cannot demonstrate that people who are skeptical are less easily fooled than people who claim these experiences. Therefore, the ability to be fooled is not an explanation. Neither is intelligence nor analytical ability.

This works out to something like 5 billion people. What are the statistical odds that this apparently ordinary human experience which transcends human history and every single culture on earth, every economic and social position and educational status is the result of mere coincidences and wishful thinking?

I think that blowing this off and dismissing it as evidence is foolhardy at best and supremely arrogant at worst.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

So you are saying (in effect) that presentiment cannot be tested for in principle. People may get messages from the immedite future, and it is impossible to tell!

This would also rule out a lot of other similar experiments.

David

Since I've been a member here, I don't recall a thread focusing in depth on the presentiment studies. We should do one. If people are interested I'll start a thread.

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

You and other skeptics always erroneously suppose that if one cannot scientifically prove something, it therefore necessarily doesn't exist. Can you understand your error?

Speaking for myself, I don't believe that something that can't be demonstrated scientifically necessarily doesn't exist. That being said, we still need reliable reasons to believe it does exist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Scott

Ought to be irrelevant? Sure, because personal judgement or experience can never lead you astray. I am not saying not to trust personal judgement when other information is not present - just to understand it's limits like with any other information.

What else have we got apart from personal judgement? I'm talking about judgement derived from arguments and an assessment of the evidence. Not mere feelings.

The fact that some phenomenon is not regarded as being scientifically established does not establish its non-existence. And besides, the issue of whether some alleged phenomenon has been shown to exist will depend on prior assumptions about the nature of reality. Such assumptions are normally uncritically accepted by scientists.