Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

The (in)famous Ganzfeld

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Maaneli View Post
    BTW, if you'd like to read about the current objections from recognized skeptics who publish their criticisms, you'd do best to read Ray Hyman's contributions to Debating Psychic Experiences, and his comment on the Storm et al. Ganzfeld meta-analysis in 2010, as well as the replies to his criticisms. You might also look at Robert Todd Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary on the Ganzfeld, as well as an email exchange between Carroll and one of his commenters who exposes Carroll's confusions about the Ganzfeld. Richard Wiseman has also published criticisms that you can read about. I can provide you with such references, if you're interested.
    I've read the skeptic's dictionary article, as well as Hyman's analysis. I wasn't too impressed with either, as I tend to take into account the rebuttle of the proponents, and they did a fairly good job rebuking the ideas of people like Carroll. I was just interested in any other new objections to the data that might have been presented recently. Ganzfeld seems like a pretty solid case to me, but I could just be missing some key evidence or reason to discard my stance.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Iyace View Post
      I've read the skeptic's dictionary article, as well as Hyman's analysis. I wasn't too impressed with either, as I tend to take into account the rebuttle of the proponents, and they did a fairly good job rebuking the ideas of people like Carroll. I was just interested in any other new objections to the data that might have been presented recently. Ganzfeld seems like a pretty solid case to me, but I could just be missing some key evidence or reason to discard my stance.
      That's a most respectable position, IMO. That thread I linked to has pretty much all of FLS's objections, as well as some of Miguel's objections, for whatever they might be worth to you. It also has my rebuttals to their objections, for whatever they might be worth.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Maaneli View Post
        That's a most respectable position, IMO. That thread I linked to has pretty much all of FLS's objections, as well as some of Miguel's objections, for whatever they might be worth to you. It also has my rebuttals to their objections, for whatever they might be worth.
        I do, however, agree that it doesnt provide anything solid on the table, in regards to telepathy. It seems that it only serves the needs of the researcher to reinforce an already prejudged notion. And it doesn't automatically scream "PSI!" to me when I see these results. Then I started going through all the options in my head, "Maybe it's precognition! Maybe its 'add other weird impossible-to-the-paradigm-situation' here." Call me a reluctant believer.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Iyace View Post
          I do, however, agree that it doesnt provide anything solid on the table, in regards to telepathy. It seems that it only serves the needs of the researcher to reinforce an already prejudged notion. And it doesn't automatically scream "PSI!" to me when I see these results. Then I started going through all the options in my head, "Maybe it's precognition! Maybe its 'add other weird impossible-to-the-paradigm-situation' here." Call me a reluctant believer.
          I agree that telepathy is not a unique (and arguably not even necessarily the best) interpretation of the Ganzfeld results. The fact that the Ganzfeld studies which use no-sender conditions have produced overall above chance hitting that's statistically highly significant, suggests that clairvoyance might also explain the results. Also, Gerding and Bierman have done precognitive Ganzfeld experiments with above chance and statistically significant results, which suggests that precognition is another plausible interpretation. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that precognition is the most plausible interpretation, given that (1) the use of a sender is not necessary for success, (2) that precognitive studies have been successful, and (3) that, as long as the receivers receive future feedback about the correct targets (which is always the case in the Ganzfeld experiments), precognition can create the appearance of clairvoyance and telepathy (but the reverse is not true).

          Comment


          • #20
            In revision.
            Last edited by Miguel; November 30th, 2011, 02:58 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Maaneli View Post
              I agree that telepathy is not a unique (and arguably not even necessarily the best) interpretation of the Ganzfeld results. The fact that the Ganzfeld studies which use no-sender conditions have produced overall above chance hitting that's statistically highly significant, suggests that clairvoyance might also explain the results. Also, Gerding and Bierman have done precognitive Ganzfeld experiments with above chance and statistically significant results, which suggests that precognition is another plausible interpretation. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that precognition is the most plausible interpretation, given that (1) the use of a sender is not necessary for success, (2) that precognitive studies have been successful, and (3) that, as long as the receivers receive future feedback about the correct targets (which is always the case in the Ganzfeld experiments), precognition can create the appearance of clairvoyance and telepathy (but the reverse is not true).

              I tend to agree with you Maaneli. You are probably aware of this already but Bierman has noted that one of the most successful ganzfeld experiments was where the receivers were only given the target as feedback and tried to retro-causally influence their own mentation in the past. An independent judge did the ranking and so this obviously avoided the situation where the receiver was exposed to all stimulus material. I don't have the paper to hand but I think the hit rate was about 45%. Also, Bierman did a re-analysis of regular ganzfeld results where the receiver viewed target and decoys as feedback and found suggestive evidence for precognition on the whole stimulus set (http://www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierm...nzfeldOT88.pdf)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Maaneli View Post
                That's a most respectable position, IMO. That thread I linked to has pretty much all of FLS's objections, as well as some of Miguel's objections, for whatever they might be worth to you. It also has my rebuttals to their objections, for whatever they might be worth.
                I should point out that the thread doesn't cover all of my objections or even my major concerns. It merely covers some of the technical problems. Miguel and I may end up going toe-to-toe on which concerns have the most relevance. I am very interested in the presentation he has started in this thread and am wondering if he is going to change my mind about the issue of publication bias.

                Linda

                Comment


                • #23
                  In revision.
                  Last edited by Miguel; November 30th, 2011, 02:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by fls View Post
                    I should point out that the thread doesn't cover all of my objections or even my major concerns. It merely covers some of the technical problems.
                    Linda
                    On that note, even Ray Hyman appears to disagree with your claim that a combination of response bias + random target distributions will result in inflation of false positives:

                    "If the randomising of the selection of targets and of the ordering of items during judging is adequate, such response biases should not affect the validity of the statistical tests" (Hyman, 1994, Anomaly or Artefact? Comments on Bem and Honorton, Psych. Bull.)

                    Is there anyone that does agree with your claim?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                      On that note, even Ray Hyman appears to disagree with your claim that a combination of response bias + random target distributions will result in inflation of false positives:

                      "If the randomising of the selection of targets and of the ordering of items during judging is adequate, such response biases should not affect the validity of the statistical tests" (Hyman, 1994, Anomaly or Artefact? Comments on Bem and Honorton, Psych. Bull.)

                      Is there anyone that does agree with your claim?
                      Umm...that comment does not actually address my claim.

                      And we've already seen examples of Bem analysing data in order to address this issue.

                      Is there any point to you bringing this up again? You've already clearly demonstrated that you do not grok what I am talking about. Surely you're not going to pretend that you have any interest in this beyond dismissing it?

                      Linda

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by davidsmith73 View Post
                        I tend to agree with you Maaneli. You are probably aware of this already but Bierman has noted that one of the most successful ganzfeld experiments was where the receivers were only given the target as feedback and tried to retro-causally influence their own mentation in the past. An independent judge did the ranking and so this obviously avoided the situation where the receiver was exposed to all stimulus material. I don't have the paper to hand but I think the hit rate was about 45%. Also, Bierman did a re-analysis of regular ganzfeld results where the receiver viewed target and decoys as feedback and found suggestive evidence for precognition on the whole stimulus set (http://www.uniamsterdam.nl/D.J.Bierm...nzfeldOT88.pdf)
                        Dave, thanks, I am only vaguely aware of that study noted by Bierman. Could you perhaps give me a reference? Thanks also for this other paper. I wish though that he had a larger sample size...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by fls View Post
                          I should point out that the thread doesn't cover all of my objections or even my major concerns. It merely covers some of the technical problems.
                          So you're saying that you've never articulated your major concerns about the Ganzfeld?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Iyace, I'd like to suggest that you ask FLS what her major objections/concerns are with the Ganzfeld. I suspect you will find it very telling.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Maaneli View Post
                              So you're saying that you've never articulated your major concerns about the Ganzfeld?
                              I have. Not here.

                              Linda

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Maaneli
                                Where? Link.
                                I don't have a link available. It's on the JREF forum and I don't visit there.

                                Linda

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X