James Randi Challenges Skeptiko’s Telepathic Dog

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Anything using what is generally considered to be the ganzfeld protocol (uniform auditory stimuli, uniform visual stimuli, free response) to explore ESP. By this time, most of the experiments followed similar processes, so that issues of using audio targets, different audio stimuli etc. weren't an problem. But as I said, I'm working on an update.

Andrew, what do you make it without audio experiments?

[Ersby]

As I said, I'm working on an update. With recent results from work done in South Africa, it should be around 28% (that's me guessing, by the way).

"Without audio experiments" - I assume you mean without audio targets, like music? Only one experiment was done 2000-07 with audio targets and that was significantly above chance, so excluding that nudges the hit rate down a little bit. By 0.1%, more or less.

[Open Mind]

Cheers Andrew.

When you arrived at the 27% figure (2000-2005) were the details published anywhere to check out?

Best of luck with your update to 2007.

[Ersby]

Oops. When I wrote "South Africa" earlier, I meant South America.

The data for 2000-05 is in part seven of my articles:

SkepticReport * A History of Psi in the Ganzfeld - Part 1

[Open Mind]

Thanks for link Andrew.

Incidentally, you mentioned a recent Ganzfeld study (in the Louie Suava topic) .... is more info published anywhere yet on that? .... is that the one at Northampton University?

[eyemsougly]

do you anticipate the 28% result still being non significant? It sounds borderline.

I think you should take out the audio target test.

do you know if all the studies are fully automated? Only full automation puts to rest the criticism of the ganzfeld presented thus far, in my opinion.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Thanks for link Andrew.

Incidentally, you mentioned a recent Ganzfeld study (in the Louie Suava topic) .... is more info published anywhere yet on that? .... is that the one at Northampton University?

I've not seen anything more about it yet. It was conducted at Liverpool Hope Univesity.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

do you anticipate the 28% result still being non significant? It sounds borderline.

Not sure. I'd have to check.

I think you should take out the audio target test.

do you know if all the studies are fully automated? Only full automation puts to rest the criticism of the ganzfeld presented thus far, in my opinion.

Most ganzfeld work is fully automated now. Although rereading these papers is throwing up some very odd thigns, even with recent work. Especially with the randomisation issues. Methods such as going through the target pool alphabetically or choosing the targets for the whole experiment beforehand and keeping that list in a locked drawer don't seem to me to be optimal methods.

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Ersby

Most ganzfeld work is fully automated now. Although rereading these papers is throwing up some very odd thigns, even with recent work. Especially with the randomisation issues. Methods such as going through the target pool alphabetically or choosing the targets for the whole experiment beforehand and keeping that list in a locked drawer don't seem to me to be optimal methods.

shouldn't the randomization be done by a computer? That seems like common sense to me.


the alphabetical idea in particular sounds awful. Why would any journal even accept the publication of an experiment that used such a crappy randomization method?