Replication and Meta-Analysis

[Open Mind]

Anonymous, thanks for posting those interesting quotes.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Hi, I'm new.

Not really my place to say this ..... but welcome to the forum

what we need is a repeatable experiment, not excuses why we can't find one.

The results are arguably repeatable, just not repeatable in a manner to convert die-hard skeptics... fortunately science can test 'excuses' if specific .... and as you point out later ... it indeed works both ways, many skeptics critique of the ganzfeld has been shown to be unproven hypothetical flaws ... or vague claims of 'error some place' which are excuses to defend their viewpoint.

What everyone really wants is a much stronger more blatant psi effect! However ...perhaps we should be more enthusiastic psi seems commonly weak! What most people don't realize is that weak/unconscious/subconscious psi probably has far more intriguing and exciting consequence for mankind than strong/conscious psi in humans. It suggests psi didn't evolve like a physical (sixth) sense, it suggests the mind and brain are not quite the same thing. The stronger, the more conscious psi is, the more it would resemble other purely physical senses, psi as a physical conscious sixth sense should have become a major evolutionary advantage in many creatures, it didn't in humans All of this suggest psi is relating to something outside our perceived physical reality.

We cannot dismiss psi because of the small effect size Any statistical result beyond chance not via normal senses might be of immense importance. Science already has moved beyond common (physical) sense models of reality. Whilst skeptics may oppose non-scientific claims (with justification) everyone should be supporting modern parapsycholgical research, it is too important to ignore IMHO. If only modern parapsychologists would try to differentiate between minds and brains experimentally, I reckon they might make faster progress

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

We cannot dismiss psi because of the small effect size Any statistical result beyond chance not via normal senses might be of immense importance.

This can be said of any sort of experiment. Unfortunately, if we take it seriously, we will spend all our time and money chasing ephemera.

If only modern parapsychologists would try to differentiate between minds and brains experimentally, I reckon they might make faster progress.

Most parapsychologists don't use any sort of brain analysis equipment, so they are making this distinction already. What good would it do them, exactly?

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This can be said of any sort of experiment. Unfortunately, if we take it seriously, we will spend all our time and money chasing ephemera.

As Dean Radin points out, normal science often uses statistical results with smaller effect sizes than those typically reported in Ψ experiments. It would make eminent sense to expend some time and money exploring fringe phenomena. The expense is tiny and the potential gain enormous. Vast numbers of conentional experiments must be performed each day which fail to lead to a conclusive result for one reason or another.

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Most parapsychologists don't use any sort of brain analysis equipment, so they are making this distinction already. What good would it do them, exactly?

~~ Paul

I would have thought this was obvious. The essential gain is that you get a lot more data which can potentially build statistical significance faster. Automated measurements possibly also help by reducing the boredome of the experiments. Think of the presentiment experiment experiment (I don't know if you count skin conductance measurements as brain analysis, but the fMRI versions of this experiment must surely count) or the telepathy tests that have used EEG measurements to look for correlations.

David

[Venom]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

As Dean Radin points out, normal science often uses statistical results with smaller effect sizes than those typically reported in Ψ experiments.

Yeah, but the prior plausibility is not the same. Dean Radin should realise that. Let's us all remember that there is no known mechanisms who could even begin to explain how Ψ might work (if it even exists).

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Venom

Yeah, but the prior plausibility is not the same. Dean Radin should realise that. Let's us all remember that there is no known mechanisms who could even begin to explain how Ψ might work (if it even exists).

ahem, non-locality...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

As Dean Radin points out, normal science often uses statistical results with smaller effect sizes than those typically reported in ? experiments. It would make eminent sense to expend some time and money exploring fringe phenomena. The expense is tiny and the potential gain enormous. Vast numbers of conentional experiments must be performed each day which fail to lead to a conclusive result for one reason or another.

By all means, experiment away. Just keep in mind that some experiment will be statistically significant at p < .05, even if there is nothing going on.

I would have thought this was obvious. The essential gain is that you get a lot more data which can potentially build statistical significance faster. Automated measurements possibly also help by reducing the boredome of the experiments. Think of the presentiment experiment experiment (I don't know if you count skin conductance measurements as brain analysis, but the fMRI versions of this experiment must surely count) or the telepathy tests that have used EEG measurements to look for correlations.

And so what is the advantage of distinguishing mind from brain?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

ahem, non-locality...

Do we have any known examples of nonlocality on a macro scale? How would my brain get entangled with that remotely viewed object? What does nonlocality have to do with precognition? Do the souls of dead people get entangled with John Edward?

~~ Paul

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Most parapsychologists don't use any sort of brain analysis equipment, so they are making this distinction already. What good would it do them, exactly?

Paul, let me clarify, I mean looking for the causal direction, I don't mean every parapsychologist must adopt fMRI (although presentiment studies are very intriguing in that the direction of cause is at odds with classical materialism)

Hypotheses can be tested without fMRI, for example Dr Ian Stevenson's research suggests young children might be more psychic and it diminishes with age. If true, one cannot easily argue the direction the brain is evolving psi, logically the direction would be the brain development filters it out.

One cannot falsify materialism by taking a snapshot because any snapshot measurement can just be called material ... the only way (I think) to falsify materialism is too look for problems in causal direction, how it would evolve, what is generating what, etc.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Do we have any known examples of nonlocality on a macro scale? How would my brain get entangled with that remotely viewed object? What does nonlocality have to do with precognition? Do the souls of dead people get entangled with John Edward?

~~ Paul

Its a basic don't know to all of these questions! Maybe Dean Radin is the best person to ask.

I think the important thing to bear in mind is the superficial similarities between current demonstrations of non-locality effects and ESP effects. Correlations at a distance and all that. Would you say that any such similarities don't mean anything?

There's an interesting chapter on this in Radin's latest book BTW.