Replication and Meta-Analysis

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Reality appears to be classical at the level of biology.

~~ Paul

That may be a bit simplistic. As you know, QM effects have been proposed at the level of the cell's microtubules.

More generally, it seems strange if classical physics/chemistry is sufficient to explain biology and consciousness, even when there is a much richer and more subtle structure to reality just a little further down.

Finally, I don't believe standard QM will bring any new insight into consciousness (unless perhaps Stapp's approach is right), because for example entanglement comes without information transfer. However, my guess is that QM (which can only really be tested in a few very special experimental situations) is an approximation to something more subtle still (Bohm).

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

However, my guess is that QM (which can only really be tested in a few very special experimental situations) ...

WTF? Let's see ... here's my computer processor ... oh look, a flash drive ... my laser pen ... my electron microscope ... my MRI report ... a bunch of light switches ... the solar panels on my roof ... electric outlets connected to nuclear power plants ...

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

WTF? Let's see ... here's my computer processor ... oh look, a flash drive ... my laser pen ... my electron microscope ... my MRI report ... a bunch of light switches ... the solar panels on my roof ... electric outlets connected to nuclear power plants ...

~~ Paul

Oh come on! A billiard table exemplifies classical physics, but it does not preclude an extension!

You can only do accurate QM calculations on very simple atoms and molecules, the approximations required to handle the wave function which is a function of 3N coordinates get more and more drastic as N increases.

David

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by anonymous

By the time Radin published the 33.2% hit rate (in "The Conscious Universe" in 1997) the randomization controversy had been resolved. The randomization issue was controversial not just because Hyman criticized Honorton's results but because statistical analysis cast doubt on Hymans findings. When Honorton responded to the randomization and other criticisms (beginning in 1983) he got a 34% hit rate. By 1995 Hyman's only objection was that they needed to be reproduced by other labs. If Hyman still thought there were systematic errors in the protocol why he would accept replications by others?

I'd have to see Hyman's actual statement to know how to interpret it.

I'd like know what the protocols were, were they process oriented or proof oriented, how were they scored, hit/miss or otherwise, did they include only visual targets or musical ones etc?

That's the 64,000 dollar question. Perhaps some process oriented studies are in that database, it certainly is not impossible considering that a lot of Parapsychologists (wrongly, in my opinion) believe the Psi debate is settled.

The comment by Dean Radin I linked to about process oriented studies is from his blog october 2005. I think he may be talking about the post 2000 drop to 27% not the 85-99 drop from 35 to 31%, same for the comment about circumscription (june 2006).

We'd have to ask him. Within the next 5 years we should see a post 2000 meta analysis that should settle the Ganzfeld issue. Until then I am going to risk erring on the side of skepticism.

Decline effects do not prove the effect size is really zero.

No but it does suggest methodological flaws in earlier experiments that inflated the initial hit rates. Although I guess there are other possibilities, which seems to be Dean's point.

Do you have a link for the Ersby's review of Radin's books?

not right now, I'll dig it up though and post it on this thread.

[eyemsougly]

here is the promised review of Radin's "The Conscious Universe". Sorry it took so long.

Apparently it isn't done by Ersby, I don't know why I thought it was.


SkepticReport * Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

here is the promised review of Radin's "The Conscious Universe". Sorry it took so long.

Apparently it isn't done by Ersby, I don't know why I thought it was.


SkepticReport * Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe"

He raises some interesting points, for instance the one about a graph not matching up with the written text, and the somewhat misleading quotations of some skeptics. There are problems with his review, however. For instance, when he in the section about the "quality of psi research" quotes Blackmore on the Ganzfeld experiments she found flawed, he fails to mention that this particular experimenter's studies have since been excluded from I think nearly all major meta-analyses. He also fails to mention the auto ganzfeld protocol, while continuing to complain about the quality of early ganzfeld research. I find it very strange for someone that admits to being "not especially knowledgeable about psi research" to write a section on "the quality of psi research" based on a few cherrypicked examples such as the one just mentioned. (Note that I'm not implying that he deliberately misrepresented the situation.)

That said, I think the article was interesting and well worth reading.

[eyemsougly]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

He raises some interesting points, for instance the one about a graph not matching up with the written text, and the somewhat misleading quotations of some skeptics.

That stood out to me too, I don't like that kind of nonsense.

[QUOTE} For instance, when he in the section about the "quality of psi research" quotes Blackmore on the Ganzfeld experiments she found flawed, he fails to mention that this particular experimenter's studies have since been excluded from I think nearly all major meta-analyses.[/quote]

The problem was that it brought up the question: if those studies that Blackmore saw were messed up, could the same be said for the other studies in the database?

[eyemsougly]

Here's Ersby's take: SkepticReport * A History of Psi in the Ganzfeld - Part 1

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by eyemsougly

The problem was that it brought up the question: if those studies that Blackmore saw were messed up, could the same be said for the other studies in the database?

Blackmore suggested fraud, and of course you could apply the argument from fraud to any set of experiments. However, the article which you linked to doesn't seem to make a clear distinction between this kind of explicit fraud on the one hand (if the studies in question indeed were fraudulent), and general sloppiness on the other. As for the latter, as you know that has pretty much been resolved with the auto Ganzfeld. The question of fraud of course is a more difficult one. The article gives the impression, however, that both fraud and sloppy design are serious issues by muddling the boundary between the two.