Does This Praxising Statement Surprise Or Irritate you?
09-06-2009
, 04:00 AM
Quote:
Prax, PTB or me will not be the ones capable of establishing that these claims are established. When they are established we won't have to chase around the internet to find out about them. It would be awesome, on par with relativity.
It's actually quite difficult to find people that don't believe in mysterious forces of some kind, so it won't be resisted when it's established. Not like having to turn over geocentrism.
-
It's actually quite difficult to find people that don't believe in mysterious forces of some kind, so it won't be resisted when it's established. Not like having to turn over geocentrism.
-
09-06-2009
, 04:44 AM
The James Randi Educational Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can demonstrate any level of any form of supernatural ability under proper observing conditions. Nobody has qualified yet.
09-06-2009
, 10:19 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
I don't see any comments about the actual studies PEAR has conducted. Are they legitimate or not? From what I gather PEAR was funded by Princeton for years while it was conducting them.
PairTheBoard
PairTheBoard
09-06-2009
, 10:35 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Originally Posted by luckyme
"Prax, PTB or me will not be the ones capable of establishing that these claims are established. When they are established we won't have to chase around the internet to find out about them. It would be awesome, on par with relativity.
It's actually quite difficult to find people that don't believe in mysterious forces of some kind, so it won't be resisted when it's established. Not like having to turn over geocentrism."
Normally I would agree with this. But from what I gather, it's not like the PEAR results discoverd Uri Geller type people or people that could pass the Randi test. Their conclusions are based on high statistical confidence of very small effects. It sounds like duplication of their results would be time consuming and expensive. It sounds like something the media might not find exciting. I suspect the attitude of the scientific community is that something's got to be wrong with the controls because we know such effects are impossible. So not much interest in devoting 20 years to a project attempting to duplicate the results.
PairTheBoard
"Prax, PTB or me will not be the ones capable of establishing that these claims are established. When they are established we won't have to chase around the internet to find out about them. It would be awesome, on par with relativity.
It's actually quite difficult to find people that don't believe in mysterious forces of some kind, so it won't be resisted when it's established. Not like having to turn over geocentrism."
Normally I would agree with this. But from what I gather, it's not like the PEAR results discoverd Uri Geller type people or people that could pass the Randi test. Their conclusions are based on high statistical confidence of very small effects. It sounds like duplication of their results would be time consuming and expensive. It sounds like something the media might not find exciting. I suspect the attitude of the scientific community is that something's got to be wrong with the controls because we know such effects are impossible. So not much interest in devoting 20 years to a project attempting to duplicate the results.
PairTheBoard
09-06-2009
, 12:34 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,800
Quote:
Normally I would agree with this. But from what I gather, it's not like the PEAR results discoverd Uri Geller type people or people that could pass the Randi test. Their conclusions are based on high statistical confidence of very small effects. It sounds like duplication of their results would be time consuming and expensive. It sounds like something the media might not find exciting. I suspect the attitude of the scientific community is that something's got to be wrong with the controls because we know such effects are impossible. So not much interest in devoting 20 years to a project attempting to duplicate the results.
Hey, maybe that's what going on. It's not that the research isn't happening it's that it's being controlled by 'them' so they have exclusive use of it's powers.
09-06-2009
, 03:01 PM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
This looks like a decent critique of the PEAR study.
Skeptic's Dictionary on PEAR
Certainly Praxising has gone way overboard in saying anything has been "scientifically proved". The PEAR study represents to have compiled a large data set to produce a statistic showing a small probability the results are due to chance for a result that amounts to a very small effect and a very small deviation from chance. I don't agree with the suggestion in the Skeptic's Critique that such a result is necessarily a "sign of pathological science or voodoo science". However, the smaller the effect the greater is the demand on absolutely rigorous controls.
I think there are some flaws in the Skeptic's Critique and it would be nice to see people apply their critical thinking skills to pointing them out. Of course you run the risk of appearing to support a position you disagree with when you do so. But I don't think you can lay claim to being a critical thinker if you can't.
Included in the Skeptic's Critique are links to failed attempts to duplicate the PEAR study. I think I saw something on the PEAR site which responded to those attempts as not having duplicated the PEAR controls. I'm not sure.
Quoting from the Skeptic's Critique link:
PairTheBoard
Skeptic's Dictionary on PEAR
Certainly Praxising has gone way overboard in saying anything has been "scientifically proved". The PEAR study represents to have compiled a large data set to produce a statistic showing a small probability the results are due to chance for a result that amounts to a very small effect and a very small deviation from chance. I don't agree with the suggestion in the Skeptic's Critique that such a result is necessarily a "sign of pathological science or voodoo science". However, the smaller the effect the greater is the demand on absolutely rigorous controls.
I think there are some flaws in the Skeptic's Critique and it would be nice to see people apply their critical thinking skills to pointing them out. Of course you run the risk of appearing to support a position you disagree with when you do so. But I don't think you can lay claim to being a critical thinker if you can't.
Included in the Skeptic's Critique are links to failed attempts to duplicate the PEAR study. I think I saw something on the PEAR site which responded to those attempts as not having duplicated the PEAR controls. I'm not sure.
Quoting from the Skeptic's Critique link:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic's Dictionary on PEAR
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
The brainchild of Robert G. Jahn, who, in 1979, when he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, claimed he wanted “to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.” In short, he wanted to be a parapsychologist and test psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing (called remote perception by the PEAR folks). The PEAR folks are best known for their study of the mind influencing the behavior of machines, so this entry will focus on that work.
Scientists have been unable to find any clear and decisive evidence for psychokinesis. Those who claimed to move objects with only the power of their mind use tricks such as blowing on objects, moving them with thin threads, and using static charges to move objects. Some parapsychologists have not given up the chase, however. They began searching for micro-psychokinesis (MPK), minds affecting machines in ways that can't be detected except by statistics. Just as significant variance from chance in an ESP experiment is taken as evidence of ESP (the psi assumption), so a statistically significant deviation from chance in an MPK experiment is taken as evidence of MPK.
The PEAR lab shut down in February 2007 to a yawning scientific community.
In the 1960s, physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt started using random event generators to do MPK experiments. According to Dean Radin (1997), over the years Schmidt provided solid scientific support for the MPK hypothesis (or precognition, since there does not seem to be any way to tell the difference between MPK and precognition. Is the mind affecting the outcome of a random event generator or is anticipating what the outcome will be?)
In 1986, Jahn, Brenda Dunne, and Roger Nelson reported on millions of trials with 33 subjects over seven years trying to use their minds to override random number generators (RNG). Think of the RNG as producing zeros and ones. Over the long haul, the laws of probability predict that in a truly random sequence, there should be 50% of each produced. The subjects in the PEAR experiments tried to use their minds to produce more zeros (or ones, depending on the assignment). In short, the PEAR people did what many drivers do when they try to use their thoughts to make a red light turn green.
Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C. E. M. Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work. He notes: “The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so” (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.
In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.
However, according to Ray Hyman, “the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. Her hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results."
According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994). Jahn says that the measured effect of MPK was "not large enough that you're going to notice it over a brief experiment, but over very long periods of study, we see a systematic departure of the behavior of the machine in correlation with what the operator wants it to do" (Park 2000: 198). Most experiments in medicine or psychology use fewer than 100 trials, or perhaps a few hundred at most. Big trials will have 25,000 or more subjects. Massive prospective studies might survey 250,000 people. The most commonly used P-value in the social sciences and medical studies is P<0.05, where there is a one in twenty chance that the result is a statistical fluke. The 95% confidence interval, used as a standard in most of these studies, is arbitrary, however. It can be traced back to the 1930s and R. A. Fisher. There is nothing sacred about the standard, but it was not introduced to be used with studies having millions of data points. The RNG studies go into the millions of trials, allowing a very small effect to generate a very large statistic. When we’re dealing with small effects and millions of trials "even the slightest departure from the assumptions might suffice to produce artificially significant outcomes" (Hyman 1989: 151). The main assumption that Jahn and his colleagues made may not be warranted. "It is not clear that any of these machines is truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be that lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials" (Park 2000: 199).
These data should remind us that statistical significance does not imply importance. Science that claims to have identified barely detectable causal agents observed near the threshold of sensation, which are nevertheless asserted to have been detected with great accuracy and be of great significance, is one of the signs of what Irving Langmuir called pathological science and Bob Park calls voodoo science.
Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000).
Based on the results of these experiments, Radin claims that “researchers have produced persuasive, consistent, replicated evidence that mental intention is associated with the behavior of …physical systems” (Radin 1997: 144). That sounds like a hasty conclusion to me. He also claims that “the experimental results are not likely due to chance, selective reporting, poor experimental design, only a few individuals, or only a few experimenters” (Radin 1997: 144). He's probably right except for the bit about it being unlikely that the experimental results are due to chance or to only a few individuals.
Jahn, six of his associates, and PEAR even have a patent (US5830064) on an “Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output.” The PEAR people are so convinced of the breakthrough nature of their work that they have incorporated as Mindsong Inc. They claim their corporation "is developing a range of breakthrough products and research tools based on a provocative new technology—proprietary microelectronics which are responsive to the inner states of living systems." One of their breakthrough products is some software "that allows you to influence, with your mind, which of two images will be displayed on your computer screen." They also sell a device for several hundred dollars that lets you do your own testing of mental influence on randomized outputs.
On their website, PEAR states that after more than twenty-five years they are shutting down and moving on. "Over the next few years, PEAR will be concluding its experimental operations at Princeton University," says the notice on their "Future" tab.* It seems that Bob Jahn and Brenda Dunne are not quitting, however, for they are looking for a number of like-minded folks who want to spend their time or money on the study of minds interacting with machines. They've set up a new outfit called International Consciousness Research Laboratories. As their first fundraiser, they are selling "a multi-DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition" for a mere $62, including psychic shipping and handling. The replication studies are available on a blank DVD disc, available at no cost to true believers.
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.
See related entries on confirmation bias, ESP, experimenter effect, ganzfeld experiments, law of truly large numbers, meta-analysis, occult statistics, parapsychology, pathological science, psi assumption, post hoc fallacy, psychokinesis, and A Short History of Psi Research by Robert Todd Carroll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
further reading
books and articles
Alcock, James E., Jean Burns, and Anthony Freeman (2003). Editors. Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal. Imprint Academic.
Ehrlich, Robert (2003). Eight Preposterous Propositions: From the Genetics of Homosexuality to the Benefits of Global Warming. Princeton University Press. (Ehrlich, a physicist, considers the proposition that we can influence matter by mind alone to be highly preposterous, meriting four flakes (out of four) on his flakeometer.)
Hansel, C. E. M. (1989). The Search for Psychic Power: ESP and Parapsychology Revisited. Prometheus Books,
Hyman, Ray (1989). The Elusive Quarry: a Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research. Prometheus Books.
McCrone, J. (1994) "Psychic powers: What are the odds?" The New Scientist. November 1994, pp. 34-38.
Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford U. Press, 2000).
Park, Robert L. (2008). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press.
Radin, Dean (1997). The Conscious Universe - The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. HarperCollins.
websites
Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments (1992) by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, June, pp. 97-113.
The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality (1996) by Ray Hyman
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena (1995) by Ray Hyman
Slashdot - News for Nerds, IBM and Mind Input Devices
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research
STATS - Statistics and the Media (This site had nothing to do with PEAR but since PEAR's claims are based upon statistical analysis of data, I thought some readers might like to look at a site that does nothing but look at statistical data and examine what some people try to do with that data.)
The brainchild of Robert G. Jahn, who, in 1979, when he was Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University, claimed he wanted “to pursue rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to contemporary engineering practice.” In short, he wanted to be a parapsychologist and test psychokinesis (PK) and remote viewing (called remote perception by the PEAR folks). The PEAR folks are best known for their study of the mind influencing the behavior of machines, so this entry will focus on that work.
Scientists have been unable to find any clear and decisive evidence for psychokinesis. Those who claimed to move objects with only the power of their mind use tricks such as blowing on objects, moving them with thin threads, and using static charges to move objects. Some parapsychologists have not given up the chase, however. They began searching for micro-psychokinesis (MPK), minds affecting machines in ways that can't be detected except by statistics. Just as significant variance from chance in an ESP experiment is taken as evidence of ESP (the psi assumption), so a statistically significant deviation from chance in an MPK experiment is taken as evidence of MPK.
The PEAR lab shut down in February 2007 to a yawning scientific community.
In the 1960s, physicist and parapsychologist Helmut Schmidt started using random event generators to do MPK experiments. According to Dean Radin (1997), over the years Schmidt provided solid scientific support for the MPK hypothesis (or precognition, since there does not seem to be any way to tell the difference between MPK and precognition. Is the mind affecting the outcome of a random event generator or is anticipating what the outcome will be?)
In 1986, Jahn, Brenda Dunne, and Roger Nelson reported on millions of trials with 33 subjects over seven years trying to use their minds to override random number generators (RNG). Think of the RNG as producing zeros and ones. Over the long haul, the laws of probability predict that in a truly random sequence, there should be 50% of each produced. The subjects in the PEAR experiments tried to use their minds to produce more zeros (or ones, depending on the assignment). In short, the PEAR people did what many drivers do when they try to use their thoughts to make a red light turn green.
Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. C. E. M. Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt’s work. He notes: “The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt’s findings and 261 experiments failed to do so” (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.
In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says “in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance” [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent." Similar results were found with experiments where people tried to use their minds to affect the outcome of rolls of the dice, according to Radin. And, when Nelson did his own analysis of all the PEAR data (1,262 experiments involving 108 people), he found similar results to the earlier RNG studies but "with odds against chance of four thousand to one" (Radin 1997: 143). Nelson also claimed that there were no "star" performers.
However, according to Ray Hyman, “the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one ‘operator’ (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. Her hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results."
According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994). Jahn says that the measured effect of MPK was "not large enough that you're going to notice it over a brief experiment, but over very long periods of study, we see a systematic departure of the behavior of the machine in correlation with what the operator wants it to do" (Park 2000: 198). Most experiments in medicine or psychology use fewer than 100 trials, or perhaps a few hundred at most. Big trials will have 25,000 or more subjects. Massive prospective studies might survey 250,000 people. The most commonly used P-value in the social sciences and medical studies is P<0.05, where there is a one in twenty chance that the result is a statistical fluke. The 95% confidence interval, used as a standard in most of these studies, is arbitrary, however. It can be traced back to the 1930s and R. A. Fisher. There is nothing sacred about the standard, but it was not introduced to be used with studies having millions of data points. The RNG studies go into the millions of trials, allowing a very small effect to generate a very large statistic. When we’re dealing with small effects and millions of trials "even the slightest departure from the assumptions might suffice to produce artificially significant outcomes" (Hyman 1989: 151). The main assumption that Jahn and his colleagues made may not be warranted. "It is not clear that any of these machines is truly random. Indeed, it is generally believed that there are no truly random machines. It may be that lack of randomness only begins to show up after many trials" (Park 2000: 199).
These data should remind us that statistical significance does not imply importance. Science that claims to have identified barely detectable causal agents observed near the threshold of sensation, which are nevertheless asserted to have been detected with great accuracy and be of great significance, is one of the signs of what Irving Langmuir called pathological science and Bob Park calls voodoo science.
Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000).
Based on the results of these experiments, Radin claims that “researchers have produced persuasive, consistent, replicated evidence that mental intention is associated with the behavior of …physical systems” (Radin 1997: 144). That sounds like a hasty conclusion to me. He also claims that “the experimental results are not likely due to chance, selective reporting, poor experimental design, only a few individuals, or only a few experimenters” (Radin 1997: 144). He's probably right except for the bit about it being unlikely that the experimental results are due to chance or to only a few individuals.
Jahn, six of his associates, and PEAR even have a patent (US5830064) on an “Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output.” The PEAR people are so convinced of the breakthrough nature of their work that they have incorporated as Mindsong Inc. They claim their corporation "is developing a range of breakthrough products and research tools based on a provocative new technology—proprietary microelectronics which are responsive to the inner states of living systems." One of their breakthrough products is some software "that allows you to influence, with your mind, which of two images will be displayed on your computer screen." They also sell a device for several hundred dollars that lets you do your own testing of mental influence on randomized outputs.
On their website, PEAR states that after more than twenty-five years they are shutting down and moving on. "Over the next few years, PEAR will be concluding its experimental operations at Princeton University," says the notice on their "Future" tab.* It seems that Bob Jahn and Brenda Dunne are not quitting, however, for they are looking for a number of like-minded folks who want to spend their time or money on the study of minds interacting with machines. They've set up a new outfit called International Consciousness Research Laboratories. As their first fundraiser, they are selling "a multi-DVD/CD set entitled The PEAR Proposition" for a mere $62, including psychic shipping and handling. The replication studies are available on a blank DVD disc, available at no cost to true believers.
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing about PEAR is the fact that suggestions by critics that should have been considered were routinely ignored. Physicist Bob Park reports, for example, that he suggested to Jahn two types of experiments that would have bypassed the main criticisms aimed at PEAR. Why not do a double-blind experiment? asked Park. Have a second RNG determine the task of the operator and do not let this determination be known to the one recording the results. This could have eliminated the charge of experimenter bias. Another experiment, however, could have eliminated most criticism. Park suggested that PEAR have operators try to use their minds to move a "state-of-the-art microbalance" (Park 2008, 138-139). A microbalance can make precise measurements on the order of a millionth of a gram. One doesn't need to be clairvoyant to figure out why this suggestion was never heeded.
See related entries on confirmation bias, ESP, experimenter effect, ganzfeld experiments, law of truly large numbers, meta-analysis, occult statistics, parapsychology, pathological science, psi assumption, post hoc fallacy, psychokinesis, and A Short History of Psi Research by Robert Todd Carroll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
further reading
books and articles
Alcock, James E., Jean Burns, and Anthony Freeman (2003). Editors. Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal. Imprint Academic.
Ehrlich, Robert (2003). Eight Preposterous Propositions: From the Genetics of Homosexuality to the Benefits of Global Warming. Princeton University Press. (Ehrlich, a physicist, considers the proposition that we can influence matter by mind alone to be highly preposterous, meriting four flakes (out of four) on his flakeometer.)
Hansel, C. E. M. (1989). The Search for Psychic Power: ESP and Parapsychology Revisited. Prometheus Books,
Hyman, Ray (1989). The Elusive Quarry: a Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research. Prometheus Books.
McCrone, J. (1994) "Psychic powers: What are the odds?" The New Scientist. November 1994, pp. 34-38.
Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford U. Press, 2000).
Park, Robert L. (2008). Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science. Princeton University Press.
Radin, Dean (1997). The Conscious Universe - The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. HarperCollins.
websites
Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments (1992) by George P. Hansen, Jessica Utts, Betty Markwick, Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 56, No. 2, June, pp. 97-113.
The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality (1996) by Ray Hyman
Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena (1995) by Ray Hyman
Slashdot - News for Nerds, IBM and Mind Input Devices
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies
Research
STATS - Statistics and the Media (This site had nothing to do with PEAR but since PEAR's claims are based upon statistical analysis of data, I thought some readers might like to look at a site that does nothing but look at statistical data and examine what some people try to do with that data.)
PairTheBoard
09-06-2009
, 03:33 PM
Sounds like something similar to noting that a guy who claimed to have powers flipped a million coins and got 501,000 heads. If "having powers" was a routine occurence than this result would be statistically significant and it would be reasanable to assume that this guy had the power to change a 50% shot to a 50.1% shot.
But in the real world people who claim to have power don't say it is this minute. And in the real world people with power are not a common occurence, if they exist at all. So an experimental result like this shows nothing.
But in the real world people who claim to have power don't say it is this minute. And in the real world people with power are not a common occurence, if they exist at all. So an experimental result like this shows nothing.
09-06-2009
, 04:29 PM
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,800
Quote:
I think there are some flaws in the Skeptic's Critique and it would be nice to see people apply their critical thinking skills to pointing them out. Of course you run the risk of appearing to support a position you disagree with when you do so. But I don't think you can lay claim to being a critical thinker if you can't.
09-06-2009
, 07:56 PM
Like I always say David, Christianity is a gateway belief.
09-06-2009
, 08:13 PM
Quote:
It's interesting that you think using the power - wait - abusing the power of your position to put my name at the top of a thread will somehow - do what? Am I supposed to faint? Go on life tilt? You do realize that I know this means you read through all of my deathless prose to choose just the right one to post here. Unfortunately for your sycophants, you also chose the one with the links to the unassailable mathematics that proves what I said is factual. This how you get those ancient rocks off, Sklansky? Trying to prove to yourself that you are superior to everyone?
Do you know why they don't follow the links and find out the Truth? Because, like you, they all suffer from such low self-esteem that if they had to face their philosophy being wrong - they are convinced what is left of their egos could not survive.
What you do is simply wrong. Like you, these kids were brainwashed into thinking that only "smart" people are worthwhile people. Like you, most of them are woefully undereducated, and don't know - well - anything really about how science actually works.
Unlike you, they are young. Most of them have little or no power base from which to operate. And you, deus ex foruma, spend all this time propping up your self-image with your never-ending delight in starting the storms - Sklansky as God.
Get the f over yourself and go get the dam PhD and leave these children alone. Then maybe you can stop embarrassing yourself on TV.
David - you're going to live forever. It's time to start dealing with it because you haven't got that much time left. And while you are making jokes about me, your dreams betray you.
Do you know why they don't follow the links and find out the Truth? Because, like you, they all suffer from such low self-esteem that if they had to face their philosophy being wrong - they are convinced what is left of their egos could not survive.
What you do is simply wrong. Like you, these kids were brainwashed into thinking that only "smart" people are worthwhile people. Like you, most of them are woefully undereducated, and don't know - well - anything really about how science actually works.
Unlike you, they are young. Most of them have little or no power base from which to operate. And you, deus ex foruma, spend all this time propping up your self-image with your never-ending delight in starting the storms - Sklansky as God.
Get the f over yourself and go get the dam PhD and leave these children alone. Then maybe you can stop embarrassing yourself on TV.
David - you're going to live forever. It's time to start dealing with it because you haven't got that much time left. And while you are making jokes about me, your dreams betray you.
09-06-2009
, 11:31 PM
I understand that you are not educated enough - and perhaps like me could not be - to understand the complex maths involved. I assure you that the head of the statistics dept at UCal Davis is and was when the first analysis was done as is - well - as are everyone at Princeton.
You're funny. I keep hearing this from people who actually think that there would be big screaming headlines. How very odd that you, yourself, live in complete denial so deep and so precious to your own self-image that you will not under any circumstances look at the evidence objectively, but think everyone in the media - somehow will.
I understand. You see, almost no one cares about facts. But everyone cares about philosophy. People will kill you over philosophy. Or, remain in blissful and abyssmal ignorance before they would have to face the idea that: they no longer know what's real or the question of who they will be if they do know.
Atheism is the religion of ignorance.
09-06-2009
, 11:45 PM
old hand
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
I understand that you are not educated enough - and perhaps like me could not be - to understand the complex maths involved. I assure you that the head of the statistics dept at UCal Davis is and was when the first analysis was done as is - well - as are everyone at Princeton.
The Princeton Alumni Weekly reported: "Jahn's general conclusions are that anomalous phenomena are real, can be studied scientifically in large data sets, and could be used in applications. He admitted that some of his faculty colleagues view the research with scepticism (sic), and others have been completely dismissive. ..."
from http://seminars.torontoghosts.org/bl...x.php/2007/02/
I want to understand how a thoughtful person can investigate and decide that PEAR proved ESP exists, and the James Randi is a fraud. I have some suspicions, though.
Thanks for trying to help save all the impressionable children from the evil old pervert, though. Did someone save you from the DS's of the world when you were 20?
09-07-2009
, 12:01 AM
Whether these studies ably support that there is some interaction between mind and machine that we currently don't understand seems irrelevant to the context in which you usually bring it up. They certainly offer extremely strong support for rejecting anyone who claims to have psychic abilities at their disposal out of hand. You have made statements regarding "psychic abilities" in the vernacular and then supported them with links to people who have culled massive amounts of data and found absolutely no support for their existence.
09-07-2009
, 12:05 AM
Look. Will you concede that 99.999% of claims to possess ESP/telekinesis are false? If you do that, I will try to take you more seriously. But right now, you seem so UNCONDITIONALLY CREDULOUS that it's impossible to give your opinion any weight.
09-07-2009
, 01:05 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
Sounds like something similar to noting that a guy who claimed to have powers flipped a million coins and got 501,000 heads. If "having powers" was a routine occurence than this result would be statistically significant and it would be reasanable to assume that this guy had the power to change a 50% shot to a 50.1% shot.
But in the real world people who claim to have power don't say it is this minute. And in the real world people with power are not a common occurence, if they exist at all. So an experimental result like this shows nothing.
But in the real world people who claim to have power don't say it is this minute. And in the real world people with power are not a common occurence, if they exist at all. So an experimental result like this shows nothing.
I think PEAR represents their results to be more like 100 random participants who claim no special powers flipping a cumulative Trillion times and getting 501 billion heads. As in your example, that's a small effect only raising the success rate from 50% to 50.1%. Except in this case it's 2000 standard deviations above expectation. That's not just suprising. It's compelling evidence that something is going on assuming absolutely rigorous controls for the experiment.
PairTheBoard
09-07-2009
, 02:24 AM
Quote:
If I'm calculating correctly that would be 2 standard deviations above expectation. Somewhat suprising but not particularly stunning.
I think PEAR represents their results to be more like 100 random participants who claim no special powers flipping a cumulative Trillion times and getting 501 billion heads. As in your example, that's a small effect only raising the success rate from 50% to 50.1%. Except in this case it's 2000 standard deviations above expectation. That's not just suprising. It's compelling evidence that something is going on assuming absolutely rigorous controls for the experiment.
PairTheBoard
I think PEAR represents their results to be more like 100 random participants who claim no special powers flipping a cumulative Trillion times and getting 501 billion heads. As in your example, that's a small effect only raising the success rate from 50% to 50.1%. Except in this case it's 2000 standard deviations above expectation. That's not just suprising. It's compelling evidence that something is going on assuming absolutely rigorous controls for the experiment.
PairTheBoard
"The PEAR study represents to have compiled a large data set to produce a statistic showing a small probability the results are due to chance"
Meanwhile you might want to let your supposed ally in this thread know that you would salivate at the chance to bet 10% of your bankroll at even money that this supposed result would not be duplicated under rigorous conditions.
09-07-2009
, 02:47 AM
YES! Praxising I <3 you.
09-07-2009
, 03:12 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
PairTheBoard
09-07-2009
, 03:24 AM
Why? If it's talking about what I think it's talking about it would be a waste of time.
09-07-2009
, 05:08 AM
Quote:
They are proven, of course. You simply fear knowing that, it will completely derail your safe view of the world and your surety that you are smarter than oh-so-many people.
I understand that you are not educated enough - and perhaps like me could not be - to understand the complex maths involved. I assure you that the head of the statistics dept at UCal Davis is and was when the first analysis was done as is - well - as are everyone at Princeton.
You're funny. I keep hearing this from people who actually think that there would be big screaming headlines. How very odd that you, yourself, live in complete denial so deep and so precious to your own self-image that you will not under any circumstances look at the evidence objectively, but think everyone in the media - somehow will.
I understand. You see, almost no one cares about facts. But everyone cares about philosophy. People will kill you over philosophy. Or, remain in blissful and abyssmal ignorance before they would have to face the idea that: they no longer know what's real or the question of who they will be if they do know.
Atheism is the religion of ignorance.
I understand that you are not educated enough - and perhaps like me could not be - to understand the complex maths involved. I assure you that the head of the statistics dept at UCal Davis is and was when the first analysis was done as is - well - as are everyone at Princeton.
You're funny. I keep hearing this from people who actually think that there would be big screaming headlines. How very odd that you, yourself, live in complete denial so deep and so precious to your own self-image that you will not under any circumstances look at the evidence objectively, but think everyone in the media - somehow will.
I understand. You see, almost no one cares about facts. But everyone cares about philosophy. People will kill you over philosophy. Or, remain in blissful and abyssmal ignorance before they would have to face the idea that: they no longer know what's real or the question of who they will be if they do know.
Atheism is the religion of ignorance.
if you think any scientist in the world would not jump at the opportunity to do research in "ESP" if such a thing was proven real - then you have no clue what type of people scientists are
the princeton experiments were closed down because they were very likely fraudulent as most of the "anomalous" data came from a staff operator and when that operator was excluded from the statistical analysis there were no dramatic conclusions of statistical significance one could make
the fact that there are crackpots at all major universities is not new and shouldn't come as a surprise; as shouldn't the fact that some people would lie and cheat to get money/become famous
09-07-2009
, 10:06 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
the princeton experiments were closed down because they were very likely fraudulent as most of the "anomalous" data came from a staff operator and when that operator was excluded from the statistical analysis there were no dramatic conclusions of statistical significance one could make
I believe if the single outlier is excluded the chances of the cumulative results being due to luck go from something like 1 in a trillion to 1 in 20 - according to whatever I was reading. That would be more like David's example above. Suprising but not stunning. However, I expect they used staff operators regularly as test subjects and I don't know if being a staff operator provided oportunity for cheating. If there were something to this effect you might expect there to be some people who sometimes produce it with exceptional strength.
Rather than throw the outlier out of the data set and quit, I think you would want to repeat the experiment with different subjects to see if such outliers occur regularly. You might also want to focus additional tests on the outlier subjects themselves, although inability of an outlier to repeat would not necessarily discredit their original performance. People might sometimes get in a "zone" as athletes describe it.
I agree however that the controls for the PEAR experiments are not free from controversy. For statistics like this with effects this small the controls for the experiments need to be pristine for us to have high confidence in the results.
PairTheBoard
09-07-2009
, 10:12 AM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,144
PairTheBoard
09-07-2009
, 10:15 AM
scientific experiments need to satisfy strict standards to be taken seriously and one of those standards is repeatability - you have to be able to obtain that same result independently given the same conditions
whenever you see some apparently remarkable discovery that by some miracle is only observed in one lab and no other it should trigger red flags immediately (although, very rarely, as history has shown more than one lab can cheat together to avoid triggering these flags for as long as possible)
whenever you see some apparently remarkable discovery that by some miracle is only observed in one lab and no other it should trigger red flags immediately (although, very rarely, as history has shown more than one lab can cheat together to avoid triggering these flags for as long as possible)
09-07-2009
, 11:47 AM
Quote:
scientific experiments need to satisfy strict standards to be taken seriously and one of those standards is repeatability - you have to be able to obtain that same result independently given the same conditions
whenever you see some apparently remarkable discovery that by some miracle is only observed in one lab and no other it should trigger red flags immediately (although, very rarely, as history has shown more than one lab can cheat together to avoid triggering these flags for as long as possible)
whenever you see some apparently remarkable discovery that by some miracle is only observed in one lab and no other it should trigger red flags immediately (although, very rarely, as history has shown more than one lab can cheat together to avoid triggering these flags for as long as possible)
Excellent point and repeatability is key, the independent verification by a score of other researchers under rigorous controlled conditions would go along way in giving some credence to the whole “ESP hypothesis”. The PEAR study group has the smell of the Cold Fusion crowd - A combination of bias toward their own research, wishful thinking, shoddy standards and controls, questionable conclusions, and the unending search for a positive result on pre-conceived notions.
Credulity and self-delusion are very powerful forces in the human psyche and even scientists can occasionally be lead astay. Although the self-correcting nature of the scientific method reduces error to as minimum a level as humanly achievable.
-Zeno
Last edited by Zeno; 09-07-2009 at 11:52 AM.
09-07-2009
, 04:18 PM
Quote:
If there were something to this effect you might expect there to be some people who sometimes produce it with exceptional strength.
Rather than throw the outlier out of the data set and quit, I think you would want to repeat the experiment with different subjects to see if such outliers occur regularly. You might also want to focus additional tests on the outlier subjects themselves, although inability of an outlier to repeat would not necessarily discredit their original performance. People might sometimes get in a "zone" as athletes describe it.
PairTheBoard
Rather than throw the outlier out of the data set and quit, I think you would want to repeat the experiment with different subjects to see if such outliers occur regularly. You might also want to focus additional tests on the outlier subjects themselves, although inability of an outlier to repeat would not necessarily discredit their original performance. People might sometimes get in a "zone" as athletes describe it.
PairTheBoard
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD