Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Ian, the regulatory boards that Scott is referring to are the self-regulating boards such as exist in the professions such as law, medicine, etc. The funding tends to come primarily from the members. These will usually involve ethical standards, review boards, disciplinary committees, etc.

Correct - this would be the type of regulatory boards I was referring to.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Ian

Read what I said, then read the paper. It should have been obvious to you that the "bunk" I was referring to was your claim that "sceptics" only really want "good clear evidence" – the paper is evidence against that.

Which claim of Sheldrake's were you referring to was the question I was asking.

Originally Posted by Ian

Well jolly good for you that you disagree, but frankly, why should I care when your only means of engaging is by simply stating that you "disagree"? Does that amount to a coherent argument?

You stated that the data could be interpreted both Yea and Nay - That is saying the data does not answer the question. That and there is only one way the data really gets to say anything that can be called 'answered' and that is when it rejects the null hypothesis. The other option is when it fails to reject the null hypothesis. (yes, I know more complicated design do get to add more than one null hypothesis) Think of it as a trial jury that only gets to return 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. There is no verdict of found innocent, just we did not find sufficient evidence to find guilty. Science is the same - 'reject' or 'fail to reject' the null hypothesis. If the study or design does not specify what is going to be compared and how this will be compared before the data is collected (which removes the subjective interpretations of results) then it is just a preliminary pilot study and can not answer the question they did not have to start with. These kind of studies are useful and needed, they help determine how and what questions to ask, not provide answers to the questions.

Originally Posted by Ian

You ridiculed it by calling it "nonsense". And of course you say that you don't see any evidence – in the same way that Admiral Nelson said "I see no ships".

If that effect existed in a fraction of what is claimed by many proponent - it would be easy to demonstrate. It would make it hard to do most any research since it would add huge amounts of noise, regardless of the topic. This is not seen. If you disagree, feel free to show where this comes into play in other fields.

Originally Posted by Ian

You weren't impressed? Really? In what way? Feel free to add some substance to that opinion.

One item in particular was in the reverse questioning as a part of determining the ability of a psychic. Asking the dead if they have any questions of the sitter. If you can explain how this could be validated I would be willing to reevaluate my assessment. Also, on the page they list the 8 ways they test the ability of the 'psychics' they have the disclaimer that they are not making any statement on the ability of the individuals. Their level system used is based on amount of time the psychic volunteers with Windbridge - not anything to do with ability. This is from their website. I find those things to leave me with a strong feeling on non impressed. These were points I have made in the last couple days on Windbridge so I thought I had already given my reasons for this.

Originally Posted by Ian

That's what you reckon, is it? Do you feel the need to support your opinion with, you know, evidence?

I have heard this stated many times by persons in the skeptical movement - 'that having a method of testing which psychics can and which can't back up their claims and have a regulatory board which oversees things being a good thing' -- I will try and find some specific links. (most would have been in podcasts, but I think I can find you references to some specifics.

Originally Posted by Ian

Seriously? Are you not aware that Dr. Beischel has done precisely that, both in terms of demonstrating mediumistic ability and developing a certification procedure? Of course you disapprove in some unspecified way with her experiments, but I'm beginning to suspect that, in fact, you are not familiar with her work.

Beischel is with Windbridge if I recall. I think I covered part of that. I admit I did not look into what type and extent of grief counseling she was suggesting. The issues with the testing of abilities to me made this kind of moot. I am willing to look into that issue if it would make you feel better. I wonder how it compares the the requirements for becoming a clinical psychologist though. I will predict it will come up short in comparison.

Originally Posted by Ian

This utterly fails to convince, especially since you seem so willing to dismiss hard data with such high-handed disdain. If you want to convince me that you've looked at all the research and made a careful, unbiased judgment to the effect that none of the evidence is sufficient, then you will actually have to demonstrate some knowledge of the various studies and be willing to engage with rational arguments constructed around the data – without a lot of arm-waving and dismissal. Unless and until you are willing to do that, I don't think there's any point us continuing this discussion, since (as the tone of this post probably shows) my patience is exhausted.

I fully admit I have not looked at all the evidence. It is frankly something of an impossibility. I have looked at some of the 'best cases' that proponents put forward. I have found the evidence to not be compelling of the conclusions given. Some do have interesting results and pose some good questions to be answered. I just don't see the evidence as having answered the questions by any means.

I am happy to discuss individual papers or even specific questions. I feel I can support and defend my positions.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Scott

Which claim of Sheldrake's were you referring to was the question I was asking.

Not sure why this is so difficult. I pointed to an MSc dissertation by Philip Stevens on the entire work and career of Rupert Sheldrake and the way both he and the totality of his work has been treated by "sceptics", then in my next post again suggested you read the paper to find the answer to your question. It doesn't concern any specific "claim" made by Sheldrake, but (as I said) is a paper by a sociologist of science who concludes that Sheldrake's treatment by "sceptics" has been unfair, in particular referring to the fact that "sceptics" don't feel the need to look at the data. This was in direct refutation of your claim that "The skeptic does not want you to trust them because they say so - they want the good clear evidence."

Originally Posted by Scott

You stated that the data [in respect of the psi experimenter effect] could be interpreted both Yea and Nay - That is saying the data does not answer the question.

I was refuting your claim that the psi experimenter effect is "nonsense". I was not suggesting that the effect has yet been demonstrated to a degree that would satisfy a jury, although in my opinion it is very strange that proponents and sceptics seem to consistently get very different results in their experiments, and I am personally convinced that such an effect exists, and indeed must exist to some extent if psi is real, since it is implied in the general/informal "psi hypothesis" of non-local communication/influence.

Originally Posted by Scott

If that effect existed in a fraction of what is claimed by many proponent - it would be easy to demonstrate. It would make it hard to do most any research since it would add huge amounts of noise, regardless of the topic. This is not seen. If you disagree, feel free to show where this comes into play in other fields.

Robert Rosenthal's "experimenter effect" is one of the principal reasons for doing double blind trials, which protocols are (as noted by Sheldrake) not as widely implemented as they should be. It is of course very difficult to show, after the fact, how much of a role experimenters' expectancy has played in past experiments throughout science, but in respect of the particular "psi experimenter effect", I would argue that it plays less of a role than the "ordinary" experimenter effect because psi effects are not that great (as I'm sure we can agree!). Consequently, I must disagree that such a subtle influence would be "easy to demonstrate". Indeed, it could be argued that the "psi experimenter effect" ought (in fact) to be very difficult to detect, since it is impossible to disentangle using normal blinds and controls, on account of the fact that psi is a non-local effect.

To put it a different way, it is relatively easy to see the presence of the experimenter effect in psychology experiments, given that it is manifest through (e.g.) personal interactions between the experimenter and the subjects and in the statistical interpretation of data by that experimenter – simply use double-blind trials, and get an independent statistician to design the evaluation criteria in advance, then get that person or someone else number-crunching at the end of the experiment, and have peers (inc. potentially hostile ones) check the whole thing for mistakes and misinterpretations. However, in psi research, how can one ensure that the experimenter isn't remotely influencing the experiment in precisely the same way that the subject is meant to influence the experiment through psi?

So, essentially one can't eliminate it – but one can try to measure it. Julie Beischel has discussed this in a document on the subject here, with a protocol to help measure the effect (rather than attempting to eliminate it). Daryl Bem has also realised the importance of trying to account for experimenters' expectations in a recent interview with Alex:

Originally Posted by Scott

I’m saying that we need to incorporate the experimenters’ attitudes and expectations as variables in our attempts to replicate.

This seems to be a completely sensible and reasonable suggestion, yet you are going about trying to ridicule the hypothesized effect and arguing on entirely theoretical grounds that it can't exist because we'd have seen it already (despite the evidence that we really may have seen it). I think that the correct scientific attitude ought simply to be to support further research in the area, since it appears so vital to psi research generally. So, instead of saying "I don't have a problem of doing research to show an effect exists", I think to be taken seriously you ought to be saying "I support further research in this area".


Moving on the to the Beischel & Schwartz experiments (see the 2007a triple-blind experiment and the 2008 discussion of methodology):

Originally Posted by Scott

One item in particular was in the reverse questioning as a part of determining the ability of a psychic. Asking the dead if they have any questions of the sitter. If you can explain how this could be validated I would be willing to reevaluate my assessment.

The "reverse questioning" was put in to give the hypothesized discarnate a reason to want to communicate. As Dr. Beischel puts it:

Originally Posted by Beischel 2008

The Reverse Question section is included in all question-based
protocols to ensure discarnate and sitter motivation and to show respect
and compassion for the sitter and the hypothesized discarnate. The Reverse
Question asks, “Does the discarnate have any questions, comments, or
requests for the sitter?” This allows for information and messages ubiquitous
in nonlaboratory mediumship readings to be conveyed to the sitter during
highly controlled laboratory experiments.

I think the presence of the Reverse Question Section is fairly important in this kind of proof-focused research in order to increase the chances of seeing an effect. As for scoring, I don't think this is particularly problematic, since of course the comments given by the hypothesized discarnate would either be relevant, ambiguous/don't know or not relevant in the same way as the other items, and given that the paired readings are scored relative to each other it is difficult to see how this would create any significant problems in the analysis. Beischel & Schwartz haven't, so far as I'm aware, come up with an item-by-item scoring analysis yet (though they hint they will do in future papers), but this is something that could be isolated to a certain extent in any future published papers. I haven't been able to discover the particular data archiving policies of the journal in which they published, but if Dr. Beischel is willing to allow others access to the raw data then it would be possible to do a different analysis.

Originally Posted by Scott

Also, on the page they list the 8 ways they test the ability of the 'psychics' they have the disclaimer that they are not making any statement on the ability of the individuals.

You are misinterpreting that statement. If you read that page carefully, you will see that a "level 1" WCRM ("WCRM-1") has to go through all 8 steps of screening, which include (in step 5) a test of ability which is discussed in detail in the 2008 paper. Further "levels" ("WCRM-2", "WCRM-3", etc.) do not imply any greater ability than is implied in "WCRM-1". I agree the statement you refer to is ambiguous, but (papaphrasing from memory, from the "Survival of Consciousness" lecture) Dr. Beischel has no hesitation in saying the Windbridge Institute mediums are the best [research] mediums in the world. Professional bodies don't tend to rank their members in terms of expertise, beyond fairly basic "member" then "fellow" rankings in some bodies (at least here in the UK), so I don't think there is any serious objection to Windbridge's methods here.