39. Clive Wynne, Animal Consciousness, Making Friends With Skeptics (Podcast)

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

"Guess what results each gets?" Well, unfortunately, in the third round of experiments, neither of them got positive results.

They both got positive results until you increased the negative vibes with this post. Your post retrocausally changed the experiments from positive to negative.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Chris

They both got positive results until you increased the negative vibes with this post. Your post retrocausally changed the experiments from positive to negative.

Damn! I knew I was doing something wrong.

The trick from now on is to run lots of psi experiments, but no one can ever look at the results.

~~ Paul

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Damn! I knew I was doing something wrong.

The trick from now on is to run lots of psi experiments, but no one can ever look at the results.

~~ Paul

Even if I don't read them, I'm still sending bad vibes.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

Once you start investing in this "negative vibe" excuse you have climbed into your true believer bomb shelter and firmly closed the hatch. This excuse makes your beliefs immune from counter evidence.

No it doesn't. I am saying lets test it. There are usually ways to test it, some more conclusively than others.

More importantly before you can start theorizing about why "psi" doesn't work under some conditions you have to demonstrate that it works at all.

Well arguably it has, the die-hard skeptics aren't going there yet.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

One of the big examples of the experimenter effect was the Wiseman/Schlitz remote staring experiments.

Dichotomistic logic - psi: the remote staring experiments

Wiseman/Schlitz were not directly testing what I listed above. They would be indirectly testing it if they were testing whether the effect is stronger amongst friends in non-competitive environments compared to strangers in unfriendly environment.

To me this would be a better experiment in my opinion because if the friendly group beat the unfriendly group, this strongly hints telepathy did not evolve as competitive evolutionary brain function and again suggests the brain evolved to filter out telepathy of an external mind to develop individuality... which is what I am claiming.

The Wiseman/Schlitz experiment is still competitive, even if verbal communication is friendly. The fact is Wiseman, having nailed his reputation to psi being untrue, at least subconsciously wants Schiltz to fail. And Schiltz will be under a degree of pressure to succeed again.

'.... A person adversely affecting an experiment in extrasensory perception does not need to be physically present with the percipient. Schmeidler (1961a, 1961b) showed that the scores of percipients at card-guessing tended to be high or low according to whether an agent was wishing the percipient to succeed or to fail. Some experiments even suggest that unfavorable influences may not reach the level of an overt wish that a percipient would fail; much more subtle negative qualities may come into play (West and Fisk, 1953).....' Stevenson

"Guess what results each gets?" Well, unfortunately, in the third round of experiments, neither of them got positive results.

Latest score Schiltz 2 Wiseman 1?

There must be some kind of meta-experimenter effect going on.

Why not seriously consider it? If human performance and even medical drugs lose effectiveness due to lower mental belief, why do die-hard skeptics believe so firmly this cannot affect psi?

Edited to add ...even after correcting for selective reporting using trim and fill, the meta-analysis result of 33,357 'sense of being stared at' trials found an effect beyond coincidence of 10^46 to 1 (Source Radin - Entangled Minds) ..... many of those trials used school children, which I am predicting have slightly stronger telepathy that adults, however I predict both groups having weaker telepathy that children under 6

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

The Wiseman/Schlitz experiment is still competitive, even if verbal communication is friendly. The fact is Wiseman, having nailed his reputation to psi being untrue, at least subconsciously wants Schiltz to fail. And Schiltz will be under a degree of pressure to succeed again.

So if Wiseman fails to get results and Schlitz succeeds, it's the experimenter effect. And if they both fail, it's the experimenter effect. And if they had both succeeded, it would be the experimenter effect. Tell me, what would falsify the experimenter effect?

'.... A person adversely affecting an experiment in extrasensory perception does not need to be physically present with the percipient. Schmeidler (1961a, 1961b) showed that the scores of percipients at card-guessing tended to be high or low according to whether an agent was wishing the percipient to succeed or to fail. Some experiments even suggest that unfavorable influences may not reach the level of an overt wish that a percipient would fail; much more subtle negative qualities may come into play (West and Fisk, 1953).....' Stevenson

This is like prayer studies. There is no way to control the experiments, so I'm thinking I shouldn't trust the results.

Why not seriously consider it? If human performance and even medical drugs lose effectiveness due to lower mental belief, why do die-hard skeptics believe so firmly this cannot affect psi?

Because the entire enterprise becomes unfalsifiable gobbledegook. There is not a single thing about it that we should not believe.


~~ Paul

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

So if Wiseman fails to get results and Schlitz succeeds, it's the experimenter effect. And if they both fail, it's the experimenter effect. And if they had both succeeded, it would be the experimenter effect. Tell me, what would falsify the experimenter effect?

Uhh. Maybe if Wiseman succeeds and Schlitz fails? Except that would presumably be experimenter-psi-missing and would be extremely strong evidence for psi.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

So if Wiseman fails to get results and Schlitz succeeds, it's the experimenter effect. And if they both fail, it's the experimenter effect. And if they had both succeeded, it would be the experimenter effect. Tell me, what would falsify the experimenter effect?

Not my experiment, you raised it. If raised to counter what I claimed, well it is not testing what I claimed.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

I would add that I'm always willing to have any guest come back on and correct any mistakes, or misrepresentations I may have made.

Steve Novella did this... at least one time, but after I pointed out the obvious mistakes he and Wiseman made the conversation kinda died out.

Why???

Because Skepitcs love to dish it out, but they can't take it.

Do you really believe that?

Come on, your perception of reality is really waaaaayyyy out there...

For me you didn't win at all the debate. Steven Novella did. He gave you very good argument about why you should be skeptical of Psi. He wasn't the first skeptic to do so anyway. And then seeing that you were completely hopeless (no learning curve whatsoever, completely bias in the debate, and so on) Steven Novella moved on some other topics... I would have done exactly the same.