James Randi Challenges Skeptiko’s Telepathic Dog

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Venom

Parapsychology is not a "normal field of science" because (for exemple):

- Problems of replications;
- Null results don't put any weight on the side of the Null hypothesis in proponents minds;
- post hoc rationnalisation of failure of replications (decline effects, experimenter effect, and so on);
- Low prior plausibility;
- No convincing theory of how the Psi can possibly work;
- and so on, ad nauseam.

Do you have any data comparing parapsychology with other - say medical - sciences?

Replication is a problem in many areas - particularly the medical sciences.

Null results are also common in science - people just say "my experiment went wrong", and try again!

Post hoc rationnalisation seems a common procedure in many areas of science - e.g. cosmology - where there are always parameter tweaks or other theoretical variations to fit the data.

I could go on!

Even parapsychology were uniquely infected with all these problems, does it really make sense to tear up the normal procedures of science, and introduce the JREF test? If you don't think scientific methods are good enough to test Ψ claims, why not just say "Don't confuse me with the evidence - I know what is true, and what isn't!"

What is wrong with testing Ψ claims by normal scientific methods?

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Other area's of science don't work like that. If an experiment fails then there's a little fuss within a small group of specialists and then everyone gets on with the science again.

"Psi research" lacks a single demonstrable, reproducible effect.

If medical science were still at this stage then, yes, something like the MDC would be appropriate.

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

"Psi research" lacks a single demonstrable, reproducible effect.

If medical science were still at this stage then, yes, something like the MDC would be appropriate.

The ganzfield experiments were replicated, with better controls, and they showed positive results; the $20 million CIA study also showed positive results. But none of those were good enough for skeptics.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

"Psi research" lacks a single demonstrable, reproducible effect.

Most people here, maybe with the exception of Ersby and Paul, think that psi research does have demonstrable reproducible effects. They are just not as reproducible as other areas of science. In other words, some experiments work but some fail, and the number of experiments that work are more than we would expect by chance. Of course, there's huge room for improvement but that doesn't justify this silly challenge.

And if medical science were unfortunate enough to be dealing with an equally counterintuitive, poorly understood and complex phenomena, that wouldn't justify this silly challenge either.

If you want an experiment that is guaranteed to work 99% of the time, you need to look elsewhere for now.

[David Bailey]

Chris,

Don't you think your views are in danger of drifting into pure prejudice? I mean, lots of medical research is hard to reproduce, and contradictory studies get published. For example, after all the studies that have been done, who knows whether HRT is safe or not?

In recent years, Ψ research has come up with some fairly repeatable effects - Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake stand out. These experiments still rely on statistics - but so does a vast swathe of conventional research - but the statistical effects seem to be relatively robust.

If you yourself do an experiment, and it doesn't do what you expect, you almost certainly try repeating it and then fiddling about a bit with various relevant parameters. The next time you do that, think how you would describe a similar procedure in a Ψ-lab! I wonder if you even keep the paperwork from early failed experiments - never mind publish them to negate criticism of a file-draw effect!

Everyone has double standards about some things - it is human nature - but since you are motivated to post here, surely you need to delve a little more into what you are really trying to say. Let me try to guess - I am not trying to put words into your mouth - just trying to move the debate on a bit.

"Ψ is ridiculous, it ignores just about the whole of relevant science - such as the neurological structure of the brain, or the limited range of ways that physical things can interact in accordance with the known laws of physics, and just looks for impossible effects! Instead of taking years of study to learn how science really works, a parapsychologist can skip all that and look for absolutely anything, and sometimes by chance he finds something and publishes it!"

If that is what you are really saying, let's discuss that (I am not utterly unsympathetic to someone with such views, even though I no longer agree) rather than quibble over supposed differences between Ψ and conventional research that don't really stand up to scrutiny.

David

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Chris,

Don't you think your views are in danger of drifting into pure prejudice? I mean, lots of medical research is hard to reproduce, and contradictory studies get published. For example, after all the studies that have been done, who knows whether HRT is safe or not?

Your attempted comparison between "psi" and medical science is ridiculous. one has a solid proven foundation and one doesn't.

Consider two examples. Group A isolates HIV, sequences it and expresses the gene coding for HIV protease. They purify the protein, crystallize it and use x-ray crystallography to elucidate its three dimensional structure. They then design a small molecule that will fit into the active site of the enzyme and inhibit its activity. They trial several molecules and select the ones that are the best inhibitors of the enzyme. In vitro one of these dramatically inhibits HIV. Initial trials show that the drug dramatically reduces viral load in people infected with HIV. Does the drug reduce mortality and morbidity? The results from long term trials may well have conflicting results and the results are not always self-evident but compare this with group B.

Group B (a truck driver in South Africa) reports that his dead grandfather, a traditional healer came to him in his dreams and gave him the names of several herbs to mix together for a cure for AIDS.

Frankly, only an idiot would equate the two supposed HIV/AIDS treatments. One has a solid foundation in chemistry, physics and biology. The other is based on wishful thinking and self delusion.


Your example of HRT is equally fallacious. Hormones aren't some vague nebulous concepts. We know their structures and chemical properties and we know a great deal about what they do in the human body. HRT can dramatically improve the quality of life for a proportion of the population.

Where are the "psions" or whatever you want to call them?

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

The ganzfield experiments were replicated, with better controls, and they showed positive results; the $20 million CIA study also showed positive results. But none of those were good enough for skeptics.

This is deceptive. Individual Ganzfeld experiments have been and continue to be positive and negative. Despite the protestation of "psi" proponents there is no clear trend indicating a real phenomema.

[Psibeliever]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

This is deceptive. Individual Ganzfeld experiments have been and continue to be positive and negative. Despite the protestation of "psi" proponents there is no clear trend indicating a real phenomema.

What's your source on that?

The Discovery Channel notes that

By chance the average subject should guess the right target 25% of the time but Edinburgh’s Koestler Parapsychological Unit often achieves 33%.

Of course, that should be good enough, and yet ...

Yet after decades of research, results have not been produced that will convince scientists that ESP does exist.

Even the skepdic notes that there's something above random chance.

Between 1974 and 1981, forty-two ganzfeld experiments were conducted whose results were reported or published. According to Charles Honorton, 55% of the studies produced positive results and a meta-analysis found a successful hit rate of 38% when 25% was expected by chance. Psychologist Ray Hyman did the first meta-analysis of the ganzfeld studies and though he used different criteria for excluding studies from the meta-analysis, he also found a hit rate of about 38% even though only 31% of the studies he included showed positive results (1989, 1996). Susan Blackmore found thirty-one unpublished studies from this period, but their results were not less successful than the published ones (1980). It seems unlikely that either chance or the file-drawer effect could account for the statistical significance of these results.

So I'm wondering where you found out that ganzfield studies were all over the place. In the end, if people won't believe, they won't believe.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

What's your source on that?

The Discovery Channel notes that




Of course, that should be good enough, and yet ...



Even the skepdic notes that there's something above random chance.



So I'm wondering where you found out that ganzfield studies were all over the place. In the end, if people won't believe, they won't believe.

If 55% of the individual studies were positive then 45% were negative.

After several decades the ability of scientists to produce an effect doesn't seem to have improved at all. Some recent studies are positive others are negative.

The cumulative meta-analysis has dropped steadily from the peak of 38% to closer and closer to 25%.

You would think by now that "psi" proponents would have worked out how to do the Ganzfeld experiments correctly.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

The cumulative meta-analysis has dropped steadily from the peak of 38% to closer and closer to 25%.

Where are you getting this from?