Replication and Meta-Analysis

[David Bailey]

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).

Well, how does one measure prior plausibility? The idea that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, was pretty implausible. I would guess that the phenomenon of radioactivity must have seemed pretty implausible at the time when it was discovered - particularly as people began to realise the energies involved.

In many cases - such as the 'dark energy' phenomenon alluded to above, the explanation begins as little more than a fancy name. The mechanism for Ψ - assuming it exists - will (IMHO) involve some fairly revolutionary explanation of the nature of consciousness. If consciousness is not just an emergent phenomenon of brain complexity - if, perhaps it is liberated as death approaches, as NDE phenomena might suggest, Ψ phenomena might seem almost inevitable. Remember that consciousness is still a pretty poorly understood phenomenon - even Paul reckons it will take 200 years of research to understand it!

OK, there are a lot of if's in that, but you can hardly claim that there is a total lack of mechanism behind the concept of Ψ.

The problem is that your position can quickly degenerate into a self-reinforcing complacency - no evidence that contradicts known theories (at least at room temperature/pressure) is believable, and without believable evidence, there is no reason to look for new theories!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by davidsmith

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?

It is a rare foray into gobbledygook that does not begin
with a tribute to quantum mechanics. ---Jamie Whyte

[Chris Noble]

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 ? experiments.

As I have pointed out before this is incredibly deceptive. The protective effects of aspirin for heart disease were not and could not have been found by unguided trial and error. They were found because the pharmacological effects of aspirin were already well researched and understood. Aspirin blocks the formation of thromboxane A2 in platelets. This effect is not small. It is easily demonstrated.

It was entirely reasonable to hypothesize on this basis that low dose aspirin might protect against heart disease. This is the way that real science works.

The same thing cannot be said about any supposed "psi" effects. The source of these ideas is not through established science. These ideas come form the same place as beliefs in fairies and alien abductions.

[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

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.

If you are going to appeal to quantum mechanics then you have to be honest and admit that none of the non-local phenomena allow transfer of information.

There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics that could possibly justify claims about esp, telekinesis or precognition etc.

If only the hand-waving of quantum pseudoscientists could be harnessed then all of the world's energy problems would be solved.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

If you are going to appeal to quantum mechanics then you have to be honest and admit that none of the non-local phenomena allow transfer of information.

Firstly, I'll be honest and say that I don't understand quantum mechanics. I get the general idea but I can't do the maths. Second, why does ESP and such like have to involve information transfer? Demonstrations of non-locality may appear, to the non-physicist, to involve information transfer so why should we assume that our intuitive notions about how ESP has to work are correct?

Furthermore, to claim, as Venom did, that we have absolutely no idea how psi could work is not true since there are some scientitst who are saying otherwise. In fact, there are several different theories of psi that Radin outlines in Entangled Minds, all modifications of established physics. Perhaps you would like to comment on those?

There is absolutely nothing in quantum mechanics that could possibly justify claims about esp, telekinesis or precognition etc.

I was wondering if you've read the paper that Radin cites in Entangled Minds:

Vandegrift, G. (1995). Bell's theorem and psychic phenomena. The Philosophical Quarterly, 45 (181), 471-476

According to Radin, Vandegrift thinks otherwise. I haven't read the paper myself and I'm not sure I would understand it even if I did. There are a number of other papers cited in Radin's book that look favourably on this issue. This indicates to me that we should look upon your opinion with scepticism Chris.

I'm all for the scientific community ditching QM as a possible explanation for psi if that really is the case. But I get the feeling that sometimes people let their emotions get the better of them when hard physics is mentioned in connection with psi phenomena.

[davidsmith73]

Ok, got round to reading:

Vandegrift, G. (1995). Bell's theorem and psychic phenomena. The Philosophical Quarterly, 45 (181), 471-476


As I suspected, I don't really understand it. It's quite short so maybe I'll keep trying. However, just to annoy everyone ( ) I'll post the conclusion. If you want to know who Vandegrift is, he's Assistent Professor in Physics at Wright State University.

"Conclusion.

Bells theorem is truly astonishing, more astonishing than the rest of quantum mechanics, which makes bizarre predictions about small objects. According to quantum mechanics, large objects also display this bizarre behaviour, but to a much lesser extent. For example, the uncertainty principle predicts that it is possible for someone to be suddenly and mysteriously transported to a high mountain in Tibet, only to return just as mysteriously. However, a simple estimate indicates that the probability of anyone's being transported a significant distance is so remote that it will never happen in the age of the universe. In other words, most of the bizarre quantum behaviour attributed to particles is due to the fact that they are so tiny.

On the other hand there seems to be no fundamental reason why two people could not put themselves into what might be called a "degenerate-mixed-energy-state" and reproduce what Harry and Sally have done here. I did not intend to write an essay of psychic phenomena and made this analogy because it is the most direct description of what the EPR experiment is actually doing. I do not believe in mental telepathy, miracles and any other occult phenomenon. This affair with Bell's theorem has shaken me to the bone."

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

As I have pointed out before this is incredibly deceptive. The protective effects of aspirin for heart disease were not and could not have been found by unguided trial and error. They were found because the pharmacological effects of aspirin were already well researched and understood. Aspirin blocks the formation of thromboxane A2 in platelets. This effect is not small. It is easily demonstrated.

It was entirely reasonable to hypothesize on this basis that low dose aspirin might protect against heart disease. This is the way that real science works.

The same thing cannot be said about any supposed "psi" effects. The source of these ideas is not through established science. These ideas come form the same place as beliefs in fairies and alien abductions.

I did not mention aspirin, and Dean only used it as one example. Clearly, nobody is going to agree to take a daily tablet of any drug just as an experiment - without any evidence that it will do them good, or not do them harm - so there is no exact comparison here because evidence is required in order to justify the experiment in the first place - so maybe there is a bit of misrepresentation on both sides!

Think instead perhaps of those pioneer spacecraft that seem to be violating GR. The effect is minute, and there are no doubt all sorts of corrections to be made for light pressure, residual interplanetary gas, etc, but the effect is taken very seriously.

David

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by davidsmith73

Firstly, I'll be honest and say that I don't understand quantum mechanics.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Something that happens to one particle effects another particle and yet this happens without the transfer of information. Makes no sense to me. I tried reading about entanglement but eventually you have to read a bunch of equations with symbols thatn I don't understand either so I just gave up.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

Yeah, I don't get it either. Something that happens to one particle effects another particle and yet this happens without the transfer of information.

But it does require that the particles interact at one time. If remote viewing works because of entanglement, when did the remote viewer and the object interact?

You've got your god of the gaps arguments and you've got your entanglement of the gaps arguments.

~~ Paul

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Chris Noble

It was entirely reasonable to hypothesize on this basis that low dose aspirin might protect against heart disease. This is the way that real science works.

The same thing cannot be said about any supposed "psi" effects. The source of these ideas is not through established science. These ideas come form the same place as beliefs in fairies and alien abductions.

I agree. But I don't understand the signifigance of it. There were a lot of reports by people claiming to experience alien abductions, telepathy, pk, faries, and pain relief from willow bark tea. Some scientists decided to test whether there could be any truth behind the claims about telepathy, pk, and willow bark tea. After doing a lot of experiments in a lab they found out that the reports telepathy, pk, and willow bark tea were .....

So what is the problem with this? People observe a phenomena and science tests it. Does that make the results invalid? Are you saying the results can't be valid? Willow bark tea has asprin in it. If you trace back every scientific discovery to a previous one you have to reach the start before which there was no science since science began at some point in history.