2 Reasons why naturalism is irrational / Psi [Archive I] - Page 2

Ulrich

January 18, 2005, 01:47 PM

But I am basing my points entirely on your statements - how much more accurate can I be? You are claiming that the results cannot be duplicated for an objective witness; you are claiming that although they are completely reliable, and confirmable for considerably less than one million dollars, you're unwilling to spend the time to make that money. Either you don't want the money or you don't need the money.

You could be more accurate by basing your points on the study that Draygomb linked to, why do you not want to take the effort to read the study yourself?

And since there is no independent confirmation of the results, your request is equivalent to asking for a list of mistakes in the Gospels about the resurrection of Christ - according to you, no such list of mistakes can be gathered.

The study that was linked to did contain information regarding multiple indepedent tests, the dice roll experiment being talked about in this post was just the first of the experiments, and the methods were subsequently refined.

During some of the later experiments a simulated coin toss was used. A random number was generated by a computer, which would cause either a red light or a green light to flash (heads or tails). The psychic was told to try to get one lights to flash more often than the other. In refinements of this experiment, the random numbers were taped and sealed without observing what the numbers were, and then played back later to light the lamps. A nuetral 'outsider' was used to choose which lamp the psychic should influence when the tape was played back.

This experiment was pre-determined to run 10 times with different sets of several hundred random numbers, and I believe different 'outsiders' choosing the lamp. In 9 out of 10 of these runs, the lamp that the psychic was trying to influence lit up more often than the light that the psychic was not trying to influence. Now the light the psychic was trying to influence would light up somewhere around 52% to 56% percent of the time. I doubt that this would be enough to convince Randi, and it was not enough to convince me (give me 75% and I would be impressed). The statistical significance, however, was 2 to 3 standard deviations, and on the single run where the proper light did not light up more often the standard deviation was less than 1 (no statistical significance).

The next refinement of the experiment was the one I thought was very interesting, although still not convincing. A third party with no psi ability was introduced to observe the results of the random numbers before the psychic on whom the test was being conducted. On the runs in which this observer was involved, the outcome fell at almost exactly 50%, and on the runs in which the observer was not involved the statistical significance once again appeared in favor of the psychic.

Read the paper if you want more accurate information on which to base your arguments, it really doesn't take that long. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty if posters in this forum wish to continue to argue against these experiments without bothering to familiarize themselves with the evidence.

Draygomb

January 18, 2005, 01:47 PM

Yahzi

January 18, 2005, 01:51 PM

PSI - Free
Proving It - $$$
You can always tell emotional resistance by the loss of basic math abilities.

Proving It < way, way less than $1,000,000.

Therefore, proving it is a finacially viable proposition. If I offered you a million dollar payout for a twenty thousand dollar investment, with 99% chance of success, would you have any trouble finding the money?

Even if you, Draygomb, are incapable of raising the paltry 20K or so it would take to earn the million, why do you suppose every other psi believer on Earth is equally incapable?

Doesn't the fact that apparently all psi beleivers are dirt poor suggest something to you...?

Yahzi

January 18, 2005, 01:59 PM

It smacks of intellectual dishonesty if posters in this forum wish to continue to argue against these experiments without bothering to familiarize themselves with the evidence.
Are you going to go read every line on those websites that claim the Holocaust never happened?

It's not the ability to produce data; it's the ability to explain the data you've produced. James Randi et. al. have a very strong explanation for the data you are suggesting: fraud, incompetence, and observer bias. What explanation do the psi people offer? Why, the overturning of all physics and science for 300 years, including all the incredible accomplishments that understanding has produced.

Now you tell me: which one is more likely? In fact, which one is so unlikely that to even suggest it is to display intellectual disingenuity?

There have been no tiger sitings in my neighborhood since I moved in. Would it be intellectually honest of me to ask my neighbors for a fee for my services in tiger-repelling?

Draygomb

January 18, 2005, 02:00 PM

Ulrich
In 9 out of 10 of these runs, the lamp that the psychic was trying to influence lit up more often than the light that the psychic was not trying to influence.So 90% of the time the desired lamp lit more often. And that's not significant? :)

Draygomb

January 18, 2005, 02:15 PM

Therefore, proving it is a finacially viable proposition. If I offered you a million dollar payout for a twenty thousand dollar investment, with 99% chance of success, would you have any trouble finding the money?Yes.

Even if you, Draygomb, are incapable of raising the paltry 20K or so it would take to earn the million, why do you suppose every other psi believer on Earth is equally incapable?I'm thinking that Randi has probably set the bar too high. Or would set it too high.

Ulrich is looking for 75%. If Randi asked for 60% his money would still be safe because the high is 56%. Even if I could get the bar down to 55% it would probably still be a crap shoot.

Ulrich

January 18, 2005, 02:41 PM

Are you going to go read every line on those websites that claim the Holocaust never happened?

No, but I would be willing to read a single paper published in a scientific journal if the information in that paper was directly relevant to the Holocaust discussion we were having. Why are you not willing to do that in this case?

It's not the ability to produce data; it's the ability to explain the data you've produced. James Randi et. al. have a very strong explanation for the data you are suggesting: fraud, incompetence, and observer bias. What explanation do the psi people offer? Why, the overturning of all physics and science for 300 years, including all the incredible accomplishments that understanding has produced.

How would you come to the conclusion that there was fraud, incompetence, or observer bias if you are unwilling to even make a cursory examinataion of the evidence? Tell me, would you feel that it is less likely that there is fraud, incompetence, or observier bias if you knew that some of these experiments were carried out at Universities such as Syracuse and Princeton under the supervision of department heads at these Universities? What if they were carrried our under controlled conditions at Bell Labs, one of the most respected private labs in the world?

I do not see any place in this study where anyone is calling for any science to be overturned based on this data. In fact, some effort was made to reconcile this data with quantumn theory, in particular the collapse of the wave function in the presence of an observer. Did quantumn theory overturn all of physics and science for 300 years when particle/wave duality was first discovered? No, it was incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, which included and complemented Einsteinian physics, which had previously been incorporated into and complemented Newtonian physics.

That is what science does, it builds upon and expands the present body of knowledge, it does not reject data out of hand because it doesn't jive with the status quo. I know of a sytem that does that though, it is called religion.

(Edit: those annoying quotes)

Biff the unclean

January 18, 2005, 02:51 PM

That is what science does, it builds upon and expands the presents body of knowledge, it does not reject data out of hand because it doesn't jive with the status quo. I know of a sytem that does that though, it is called religion.
Science is a method that is designed to prevent us from lying to ourselves.
All the reputable studies have come back with the same conclusion. PSI is a fake. You ignore them and grasp at a "study" produced by crack pots. You reject reality and embrace magical thinking. You claim personal subjective evidence which cannot be demonstrated to any but true believers.
That sounds very much like religious belief to me.

mirage

January 18, 2005, 03:03 PM

:rolleyes:

The facts are that there have been numerous studies which have been successfully repeated which indicate a link between conscious desire for an outcome and the increased frequency of that outcome.You're backing a lame horse here. There is not anything approaching the statistical weight indicating anything but chance. This Bayesian non-weighting in favour of the "woo-woo" can be applied to the approximately zero prior odds of the hypothesis given no causal theory that would suggest anomalous results. So far we have a study using dodgy cumulative odds attaining at most 3 standard deviations from the expected mean, that has not been repeated in 18 years. That amounts to nothing.

Therefore one may not logically dismiss the notion that consciousness may not be contained within the physical brain.We can't rule it out deductively but we have a very strong inductive argument against this.

Quantum mechanics was a theory that reconciled crucial conflicting results that went to the heart of the problems with classical physics. It solved a problem posed by the observations. PSI research is the opposite. A desperate hunt for anomalies where there is none.

Ulrich

January 18, 2005, 03:17 PM

Science is a method that is designed to prevent us from lying to ourselves.
All the reputable studies have come back with the same conclusion. PSI is a fake. You ignore them and grasp at a "study" produced by crack pots. You reject reality and embrace magical thinking. You claim personal subjective evidence which cannot be demonstrated to any but true believers.
That sounds very much like religious belief to me.

I have done no such thing, I have repeatedly stated that I do not believe in psychic ability, and that this study in no way changed that belief.

The fact remains that the studies Draygomb linked to his post were not conducted by crackpots, they were conducted by scientists at reputed Universities and private labs under controlled conditions. If you want to question the methodologies that were used, or the data that was obtained in these experiments, you will have to read the paper yourself. Otherwise you have no ground on which to base your arguments.

I do not question the methodologies that were used, form my admitted position as a layman in the sciences involved (my degree is in Computer Programming) the experiments appear to be designed and implemented in accordance with the scientific method. The reason the experiments are not convincing to me is because I question the relevance of the statistical nature of the resulting data. I can only make this observation because I did take the time to examine the evidence. I can see no indication that anyone else here other than Draygomb has done so.

You are free to comment on the experiments and data without looking at them, but I am compelled to call anyone who does so intellectually dishonest. To require evidence to form a belief is one thing, but to avoid looking at the evidence when it is presented to you is quite another.

I will say it again, in case anyone missed it. I have examined the evidence and found it lacking, but the reason I have found it be so is quite different from the arguments coming from those in this discussion who have not examined the evidence. If you wish to engage me further in a discussion on this subject, please read the study that is central to the discussion and construct your arguments so that they display knowledge of the subject matter.

mirage

January 18, 2005, 03:24 PM

I will say it again, in case anyone missed it. I have examined the evidence and found it lacking, but the reason I have found it be so is quite different from the arguments coming from those in this discussion who have not examined the evidence. If you wish to engage me further in a discussion on this subject, please read the study that is central to the discussion and construct your arguments so that they display knowledge of the subject matter.You don't seem to understand yet. Single study. No repeatable results. 18 years old. Far fetched result with no theoretical backup or need.

That is all the critical appraisal that is required and it doesn't need to involve reading the methodology. I wouldn't believe that aspirin helps a headache on this evidence. Are we done here yet?

Ulrich

January 18, 2005, 03:40 PM

You don't seem to understand yet. Single study.

Not a single study, you would know this if you had read the paper.

No repeatable results.

The results were repeated, you would know this if you had read the paper.

18 years old.

How is the age of the paper a factor, and can you be certain that no experiments have subsequently been conducted? The paper certainly calls for further study, and even offers some refinements to the experiments based on the data that resulted.

Far fetched result with no theoretical backup or need.

The results were not far fetched, they were statistically significant, but not compelling. One more thing you would know if you had read the paper.

That is all the critical appraisal that is required and it doesn't need to involve reading the methodology. I wouldn't believe that aspirin helps a headache on this evidence. Are we done here yet?

This may be all the critical appraisal you are willing to give, but then again you appear to be intellectually dishonest and lazy, given your refusal to examine the data. I certainly hope we are done here, and I said that I wouldn't answer posts like this one, but I just can't stand by and let you run roughshod over my posts.

You know what my point is, I have repeated it time and again. Read the fucking paper, or STFU, or continue to be regarded as intellectually dishonest by this poster.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 01:25 AM

Yes.
I understand that some people (particularly young ones) might have difficulty raising that much capital. However, you need to understand that 20K is the sort of thing one gets from a second mortgage, or an early withdrawal from your 401K. It is well within the capacity of most of the adults in America.

Again, I ask the question: why do you suppose it is that no psi believer can raise this paltry sum? We understand your circumstances; but how is it that these circumstances bind every believer in psi?

I'm thinking that Randi has probably set the bar too high. Or would set it too high.
Have you ever noticed how every believer always, always, always insults, demeans, and denigrates the integrity of any person who dares to disagree with them?

Did it never occur to you that James Randi could make far more than a million dollars off any psychic event he could actually demonstrate? Did it never occur to you the fantastic benefit that would accrue to all of humanity if psychic powers could be shown to be true? Did it never occur to you that James Randi might be perfectly willing to give away a million dollars of other people's money (it's not his, you know, people gave it to him with the express purpose that he give it someone else) to bring that wonderful news into the light of day?

No, of course not: it never occurred to you that James Randi might actually be looking out for humanity as a whole. Proof of psychic powers - any powers at all, of any kind - would be worth more to humanity than any other single discovery, and the million dollars from Randi would soon pale into insignficance, after the Nobels and Rockefeller and other prizes rolled in.

Nor did it ever occur to you that there are, in fact, many charlatans out there, and that James Randi is doing the necessary work of exposing them, and thus protecting people.

You simply presumed Randi was dishonest and small-minded, without considering the larger picture.

Ulrich is looking for 75%. If Randi asked for 60% his money would still be safe because the high is 56%. Even if I could get the bar down to 55% it would probably still be a crap shoot.
For a person who cites scientific papers, you don't seem to understand the concept very well. If you can demonstrate 51% beyond a statistical significance James Randi will give you the money. The 99% I cited was not on the phenomona, but simply on the exigencies of reality - for instance, Randi could die of a heart attack just before you applied, etc.

If you can reliably influence 51% of a trial, that will earn you the money. If you can do trials repeatedly until you finally get one that rolls over 51%, that will get you nothing at all. Do you understand why?

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 01:40 AM

No, but I would be willing to read a single paper published in a scientific journal if the information in that paper was directly relevant to the Holocaust discussion we were having. Why are you not willing to do that in this case?
You would read even a single paper that claimed the Holocaust did not occur?

Notice your evasion, above: suddenly the paper is "directly relevant" to the discussion, instead of "directly contradicting all known history and fact."

How would you come to the conclusion that there was fraud, incompetence, or observer bias if you are unwilling to even make a cursory examinataion of the evidence?
On the same basis that you conclude all Holocaust deniers are wrong, without bothering to examine their evidence.

Tell me, would you feel that it is less likely that there is fraud, incompetence, or observier bias if you knew that some of these experiments were carried out at Universities such as Syracuse and Princeton under the supervision of department heads at these Universities? What if they were carrried our under controlled conditions at Bell Labs, one of the most respected private labs in the world?

I do not see any place in this study where anyone is calling for any science to be overturned based on this data.
Then you do not understand science.

In fact, some effort was made to reconcile this data with quantumn theory, in particular the collapse of the wave function in the presence of an observer.
See comment, above. You do not understand science, and you most certainly do not understand quantam theory, wave function collapse, or even what physics means by the term "observer."

Did quantumn theory overturn all of physics and science for 300 years when particle/wave duality was first discovered?
I am sorry, but this discussion is simply impossible to conduct with someone who so badly misunderstands the process and history of science. Mind you, I am not asserting that I am an expert, or even particularly knowledgable: I am simply asserting that you are so clueless as to astound and amaze the casual reader.

The parts of science that quantum theory did not overturn were the observations. Galileo dropping balls off the tower of Pisa, etc. However, psi phenomona would require the overturning of observed evidence.

For example, the four known forces have been observed to a very fine detail. There are machines that count photons one at a time. Why are there no machines that detect psi? Why has physics grappled with gravity, but never even noticed psi? What force is it, exactly, that influences the random number generator, and how? Let me put it another way: if I told you to influence the random number generator in your computer any way you wanted, with electrical probes and hammers and any device you chose, could you do it? Do you even know where in the computer it is, or how to modify it in any way? No? Then how do you suppose you can influence it with your mind when can't even influence it with your hands

That is what science does, it builds upon and expands the present body of knowledge, it does not reject data out of hand because it doesn't jive with the status quo.
Again, for the thousandth time: a study with a statistical fluke remains a fluke until you have a theory to account for it. If your theory that explains the fluke requires you to overturn all other accepted theories, then your theory is considered wrong, and the fluke remains a fluke.

Where is the theory behind these observations? Other than the skeptic's theory, of course, which is that one should never attribute to psi what can be explained by simple stupidity.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 01:51 AM

This may be all the critical appraisal you are willing to give, but then again you appear to be intellectually dishonest and lazy, given your refusal to examine the data.
The only intellectual dishonesty here is certain persons pretending that they are disinterested parties, when in fact they are making special exemptions for their sacred cows.

You know what my point is, I have repeated it time and again. Read the fucking paper, or STFU, or continue to be regarded as intellectually dishonest by this poster.
I take it then, that you concede the possibility that the Holocaust was in fact just a Jewish trick. Because you have not read the papers - indeed, I bet you have never read a single paper on the topic - therefore, you cannot dismiss it without violating your standard of intellectual honesty.

And yet, I suspect you do dismiss Holocaust deniers out of hand. Which reveals the fact that you do not treat all claims equally, despite your strident claims.

Mirage is not going to read the paper, and neither am I, until somebody explains to us how it could even possibly be true. Again, if I flip a coin and mark it against the stock market, and for one month it conforms exactly (heads when the market is up, tails when it is down), would you bother to read a paper on my data? Absent any mechanism to account for my data, what does it mean? Why, nothing at all. And this is exactly what psi is like - until you have a theory, your data is just random dots on graph paper.

Sven

January 19, 2005, 05:02 AM

I'm thinking that Randi has probably set the bar too high. Or would set it too high.
Randi sets the bar at the height the applicant claims for his abilities. I suggest to take a look at Randis website before making such ignorant claims.

Sven

January 19, 2005, 06:46 AM

Folks, I have to agree (in part) with Ulrich.

You would read even a single paper that claimed the Holocaust did not occur?
At the end of the 19th century: You would read even a single paper that claimed that the ether does not exist?

I also don't believe in psychic phenomena, but I nevertheless will take a look at the paper Draygomb linked. Perhaps I'll comment later on it.

The parts of science that quantum theory did not overturn were the observations. Galileo dropping balls off the tower of Pisa, etc. However, psi phenomona would require the overturning of observed evidence.

For example, the four known forces have been observed to a very fine detail.
So what? That's not evidence, that's explantion of observed evidence.

Why are there no machines that detect psi? Why has physics grappled with gravity, but never even noticed psi?
Why has physics in the 19th century grappled electromagnetic forces, but never even noticed the weak and strong forces? Sorry, that's a non-argument.

What force is it, exactly, that influences the random number generator, and how?
That's something to be worked out (if the evidence says there is an effect, what I highly doubt).

Again, for the thousandth time: a study with a statistical fluke remains a fluke until you have a theory to account for it.
If it's a statiscal fluke, then yes. If it were shown to be statiscally significant, it would show that there's something going on. If its Psi or something different would have to be studied. But simply waving the evidence away "because there's no theory" is crap. There was no theory to explain the deviations in the orbit of mercury, but physicists did not ignore the evidence "because there was no theory". Rather, Einstein developped a theory which could explain the evidence.

If your theory that explains the fluke requires you to overturn all other accepted theories, then your theory is considered wrong, and the fluke remains a fluke.
It's far from clear that a theory explaining the evidence would overturn all other accepted theories.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 07:59 AM

Randi sets the bar at the height the applicant claims for his abilities. I suggest to take a look at Randis website before making such ignorant claims.Quite Right. Though in my defense I wasn't making a claim but merely speculating on why nobody has claimed the money.

I hold Randi and anyone else who proves a con is a con in the highest regard.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 08:12 AM

I will say it again, in case anyone missed it. I have examined the evidence and found it lacking, but the reason I have found it be so is quite different from the arguments coming from those in this discussion who have not examined the evidence.As I understand it, Coming into this discussion you disbelieved in psi. Having read the paper would you now consider psi as possible or at least worthy of more investigation?

Can you totally dismiss the possibility of psi?

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 08:38 AM

I understand that some people (particularly young ones) might have difficulty raising that much capital. However, you need to understand that 20K is the sort of thing one gets from a second mortgage, or an early withdrawal from your 401K. It is well within the capacity of most of the adults in America.

Again, I ask the question: why do you suppose it is that no psi believer can raise this paltry sum? We understand your circumstances; but how is it that these circumstances bind every believer in psi?For someone who claims to understand science you don't seem to understand that the fact that no one has claimed the money doesn't mean it's fake.Have you ever noticed how every believer always, always, always insults, demeans, and denigrates the integrity of any person who dares to disagree with them?Yes, I've been noticing your tendancy to do that.
You've also ignored and misrepresented what Ulrich and I have said.

I never said Randi was dishonest, merely tough.For a person who cites scientific papers, you don't seem to understand the concept very well.I understand it much better than the intellectual cowards who argue without even looking at the evidence or listening to a third party account of the evidence.

Gliptic

January 19, 2005, 08:42 AM

As I understand it, Coming into this discussion you disbelieved in psi. Having read the paper would you now consider psi as possible or at least worthy of more investigation?

Can you totally dismiss the possibility of psi?

When reading the first half of the paper, I could see a slight possibility for the effect to be somewhat real if the participiant learnt in what way to influence something to yield the effect. But when I reached the claim that pre-recorded random events could be influenced the same way I couldn't take this paper seriously any longer.

Sven

January 19, 2005, 09:26 AM

OK, here's my assessment of the article.

A great surprise of the early work was that PK affected only rolling dice, but could not be measured as a force acting on a stationary die on a sensitive scale. PK seemed to act only where chance processes were involved. This suggested that PK could not be considered as a force, comparable to electric or magnetic forces.
Well, this suggest that the author has no fucking clue what he is talking about. Rolling dice is not a chance process, it's entirely deterministic. It's only a chance process in practise, but not in theory. PK not being a force is either way a huge non sequitur.

But I see that they indeed used actual "chance processes" later for their studies.

For a PK test, one instructs the subjects to concentrate, for example, on the red lamp, trying to make this lamp flash more often than the green one.
He concentrates on the lamb instead of on the generator?!? Sorry, this does not make any sense at all.

Then there follows the data. I have neither the knowledge to do the statistical analysis myself, nor do I know if they indeed report all data rather than neglecting undesired ones. But I note that the best result is 52.4% - which on the surface does not look significant to me. Especially in the light of the usual claims of Psi-proponents.

The table also seems to focus on results by Radin, who does not have the best reputation among skeptics - to put it mildly.

More details, including the precautions taken against errors are described in the references.
Since the claimed result for these 52.4% is in Schmidt, H. (1971, June). Mental influence on random events. New Scientist and Science Journal, pp. 757-758, it's impossible to check for me right now. If anybody manages to get a hand on the article, please notify.

If we find, for example, that PK works approximately equally well over large and short distances, we might bypass the enormous effort required for a high precision comparison and tentatively assume the simple hypothesis that PK is distance independent.
If they indeed come to this conclusion, it would automatically follow that PK is worthless. If one is not able to isolate the object of interest from outside effects, one can never conclude by what exactly an observed effect was caused.

Experiments with different types of "electronic coinflippers" as well as experiments with dice report PK effects of the same order of magnitude.
Demonstrating that his hypothesis that PK influences only "change processes" is crap (throwing dices is not a "change process" in the QMcal sense, see above).

This leads us, tentatively, to the following "Equivalence Hypothesis":

If we have two truly random binary generators, operating such that the generators are from the outside physically indistinguishable, then a PK effort affects the systems to the same degree, i.e., the systems are also undistinguishable in their response to a PK effort.

This hypothesis appears particularly appealing because, like the earlier hypothesis about the weak violation of physics, it is very simple and universal. And no matter whether or not these hypotheses will finally turn out to be quite correct, they can stimulate novel and provocative experiments.
:huh:
This is something which should have been determined at the start. And if experiments showed that this hypotheses is wrong, PK is again worthless. When starting with indistinguishable pre-conditions, one must always get the same result. Otherwise it's not repeatable and thus not science.

Causality Violation

Most participants in PK experiments use, subjectively, a goal oriented approach, focusing on the desired outcome like the lighting of a red lamp rather than on the internal operation of the random generator. The finding that the success rate is rather independent of the physical structure of the generator, furthermore, suggests that goal orientation may be a feature of the underlying mechanism rather than a matter of mere psychological attitude. It appears as if the subject, by concentrating on the final outcome, could induce nature to let the previous random events properly fall into place such as to lead to the desired outcome. This suggests an element of non-causality in the sense that the subject's present mental effort could affect the previous decisions of the random generator.
The far more simpler explanation is of course that there's something wrong with the experiment. But Occam is apparently not his best friend.

Both boxes with their continuously randomly flashing lights being physically undistinguishable from the outside, the equivalence hypothesis implies that a PK effort should affect the right box as well as the left one. This is, indeed, confirmed by the experiments to be discussed below.
Throwing all credibility of the research out of the window. Why not simply claim when an experiment goes wrong that a psychic (or whatever) from the far future more powerful than the one experimented on influenced the outcome? In other words, how do you know when, where, who exactly influenced the outcome of the experiment? This is laughable.

When the recording is completed, one of the identical tapes is placed into a safe, while the other tape is used in the PK sessions. During these sessions, the subject listens through headphones to the tape, perceiving the signals as clicks in the right or left ear. The subject's PK goal is an increased rate of clicks in the right ear, corresponding to an excess of generated heads. Whenever the subject gets tired, he can stop at any of the 20 second pauses on the tape and adjourn the test.

For the experiment, six tape pairs were pre-recorded in this manner, with a total of 832 blocks of 201 signals each. After the subject had worked on all tapes, the tapes were evaluated to see whether there was, indeed, a bias towards heads as aimed for by the subject.
What would be interesting is to check first if there are more "rights" than "lefts" and then ask the subject to produce the opposite result (with both the instructor and the subject not knowing wether there are more "rights" or "lefts") and then see if this somehow changes the tapes - which should be possibly, if there's indeed a violation of causality.

The total result, as seen by the outsiders, is significant with odds against chance of 100:1 (z = 2.7).
Two things are interesting here:
(1) That it still seems to work with outsiders - suggesting "there's something to it".
(2) That the odds for chance increased greatly, at least by a factor of ten and up to a factor of 10^6 - suggesting that it's simply an effect caused by the researchers themselves (selection bias, communicating information, etc.)

Conventional quantum theory answers this question very simply by interpreting the state vector not as a measure for some absolute physical reality but only as a measure of the observer's information about the system.
I'm not sure which "conventional" QT he's talking about, but the Copenhagen interpretation (which is the most conventional QT) does no such thing. On the contrary, the Copenhagen interpretation says that the state vector represents physical reality.

Quantum theory, in the conventional form or in Wigner's version, however, permits a different interpretation: With the outcome of the random decision not observed before the PK session, nature had made no previous decision yet. The PK subject encountered a physical reality composed of two equally real potential branches. Therefore, the subject's PK effort did not have to reach into the past. Rather, the subject's observation transformed the still ambiguous reality into one of the macroscopically unique branches; and in this process of state vector collapse the subject also produced a PK effect, a slight change in the conventional transition probabilities.
No, it doesn't. This guy should read up on "decoherence", the reason why we don't observe QMcal events in everyday live. This is simply esoterical blather with no basis in real physics.

From this viewpoint, the PK mechanism should no longer work if the outcome of the random decisions were observed by someone else before the subject made the PK effort. The previous observation should collapse the state vector, forcing nature into a final decision, so that there would be nothing left to change for the PK subject.

The only experiment in this direction done so far (Schmidt, 1985), indicates, indeed, such an inhibition of the PK effect by previous observation.
OK, that addresses my previous idea of an experiment. This of course could also indicate that the subjects could not really influence the random number generator and the results were due to chance/experimental errors/etc.

Each bit sequence could be displayed in a one minute test run by a pendulum swinging at a computer screen with slowly varying amplitude. (Basically a "1" in the bit sequence increased and a "0" decreased the amplitude of the next cycle).
What the heck?!? This is far too complicated and introduces additional sources of error. Two lamps would have been sufficient.

Each sequence was displayed subsequently to two subjects, a test subject with a record of good PK performance, and a control subject with no demonstrable PK ability.
Umm, sorry, a control should not be a "subject with no demonstrable PK ability", but simply no influence at all (no subject).

But in the other half of the runs, where the control subject had seen the outcome of the random events first [...]
What the heck?!? Holy crap!
OK, I take my admission back that this addresses my previous idea. Why on Earth did they allow the subject to know about the outcome?!? :huh:

Overall: Difficult to judge. Maybe an indication that there's something going on, but there are serious flaws in the research and some indications that there's something going wrong with the experiments. I'll reserve judgement until an experienced conjuror (Randi) is able to reproduce these results with some PK subjects.

Alf

January 19, 2005, 09:53 AM

Sven,

You are being far too polite in your commentary.

If it was me who made that commentary it would be filled with words like "bullshit", "non-sense", "idiocy" etc.

I have a hard time seeing how it can deserve anything else.

Alf

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 10:46 AM

At the end of the 19th century: You would read even a single paper that claimed that the ether does not exist?
Your analogy is completely flawed. The papers that suggested that the ether did not exist provided a) observations, and b) a theory to account for those observations.

Draygomb's paper provides observations. It does not provide a theory; instead, it implicitly suggests the psi theory, which is so wholly at odds with everything else as to be absurd.

The correct analogy would be: At the end of the 19th century, would you read even a single paper that claimed the Queen of England did not exist?

I also don't believe in psychic phenomena, but I nevertheless will take a look at the paper Draygomb linked.
When will you get around to reading that paper on the Holocaust?

Why has physics in the 19th century grappled electromagnetic forces, but never even noticed the weak and strong forces? Sorry, that's a non-argument.
Because those forces were below their ability to detect. Draygomb, however, is claiming that psi forces are detectable; in fact, he is claiming they are more powerful than gravity! Since we have measured well below gravity, one wonders how we missed psi.

This is not a case of "we haven't looked there yet." This is a case of "we've looked way below there, and somehow missed the elephant standing on top."

It's far from clear that a theory explaining the evidence would overturn all other accepted theories.
Only a person who did not understand accepted theories could say this.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 10:52 AM

OK, here's my assessment of the article.Thanks for taking the time to read.Rolling dice is not a chance process,Chance process or not, something was skewing the results of the rolls.He concentrates on the lamb instead of on the generator?!?Why should it matter what the subject concentrates on so long as it produces results?If they indeed come to this conclusion, it would automatically follow that PK is worthless.We can turn lead into gold but the process isn't cost effective and therefore worthless. Should we conclude that we don't know how to turn lead into gold? Being useless doesn't make it not real. This is something which should have been determined at the start. And if experiments showed that this hypotheses is wrong, PK is again worthless.Just because one or even a hundred hypotheses on how PK works is wrong doesn't mean PK doesn't exist. The data clearly indicates something is going on. They're still working on understanding how. When starting with indistinguishable pre-conditions, one must always get the same result. Or try to figure out what distinguished them.
The far more simpler explanation is of course that there's something wrong with the experiment. :eek: With All of the experiments? :eek:
If we threw out every experiment that went against the accepted norms, we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
Throwing all credibility of the research out of the window.How does proving a theory destroy the credibility of the research?

What would be interesting is to check first if there are more "rights" than "lefts" and then ask the subject to produce the opposite result (with both the instructor and the subject not knowing wether there are more "rights" or "lefts") and then see if this somehow changes the tapes - which should be possibly, if there's indeed a violation of causality.In the trials where the tapes were viewed before the attemp to influence the data all tapes had results equal to chance.

What the heck?!? This is far too complicated and introduces additional sources of error. Two lamps would have been sufficient.No, It merely gives the subject an indication of how well they are doing so they can continue to concentrate in ways that are more effective.Umm, sorry, a control should not be a "subject with no demonstrable PK ability", but simply no influence at all (no subject).Perhaps Control Subject wasn't the best term. What they are refering to is someone who views the data without trying to influence it before it is given to someone who is going to try and influence it.
Why on Earth did they allow the subject to know about the outcome?!? They didn't. They let someone else view the data to see if previously viewed data could be effected

Overall: Difficult to judge. Maybe an indication that there's something going on, but there are serious flaws in the research and some indications that there's something going wrong with the experiments. I'll reserve judgement until an experienced conjuror (Randi) is able to reproduce these results with some PK subjects.Fair enough.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 10:53 AM

For someone who claims to understand science you don't seem to understand that the fact that no one has claimed the money doesn't mean it's fake.
Nowhere in the above comment do I see even a suggestion of why Randi's million remains unclaimed. You asserted that the minimal investment required was prohibitive; I demonstrated that it was not; and your response is... well, you don't actually have one.

Yes, I've been noticing your tendancy to do that.
You've also ignored and misrepresented what Ulrich and I have said.
You seem to level a lot of charges, without ever providing any specifics.

I never said Randi was dishonest, merely tough.
The following statements imply otherwise:

But Randi's observer is likely to have a strong bias towards failure.
I'm thinking that Randi has probably set the bar too high. Or would set it too high.
If Randi asked for 60% his money would still be safe

I understand it much better than the intellectual cowards who argue without even looking at the evidence or listening to a third party account of the evidence.
If a Holocaust denier said the exact same words to you, how would you respond?

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:01 AM

Because those forces were below their ability to detect. Draygomb, however, is claiming that psi forces are detectable; in fact, he is claiming they are more powerful than gravity! Since we have measured well below gravity, one wonders how we missed psi.

This is not a case of "we haven't looked there yet." This is a case of "we've looked way below there, and somehow missed the elephant standing on top."Tsk Tsk Tsk, Using Dishonesty to support your Faith.

Bad Yahzi Bad.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 11:01 AM

PK not being a force is either way a huge non sequitur.
Hehe, see, I was right... this is so insane. The only methods matter has to interact with other matter are the 4 forces. Asserting that psi is a non-force that still interacts with matter is to destroy the meaing of the word "force."

He concentrates on the lamb instead of on the generator?!? Sorry, this does not make any sense at all.
And again... to my mind, this destroys any possiblity of psi. How can you achieve an effect with your mind that you couldn't achieve with your hands?

The far more simpler explanation is of course that there's something wrong with the experiment. But Occam is apparently not his best friend.
I'm not going to read a stupid paper. But I am quite happy to read your well-written and witty review. Thank you!

(BTW, this is what we were asking Draygomb to do - read the paper and present it as part of his conversation. We are here to converse, not do homework.)

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 11:04 AM

Tsk Tsk Tsk, Using Dishonesty to support your Faith.
Again, I would ask you to provide some specifics. If you call a man a liar, it is simple courtesy to cite the lie he has told.

Merely shouting "liar liar pants on fire" is the province of the schoolyard, not a forum for reasoned debate.

Sven

January 19, 2005, 11:06 AM

Your analogy is completely flawed. The papers that suggested that the ether did not exist provided a) observations, and b) a theory to account for those observations.
Did suggest a theory? That's news to me.
Apart from this: Would you have known this before reading the paper or after reading the paper? Just to remind you: You up to now refused to even look at the linked article.

Draygomb's paper provides observations. It does not provide a theory; instead, it implicitly suggests the psi theory, which is so wholly at odds with everything else as to be absurd.
Since I've never seen a "psi theory", I can not comment on this.

When will you get around to reading that paper on the Holocaust?
Let's see your answers to the above, then we can talk about this question. Meanwhile, I did read the part of the denier of the Holocaust in the debate some months ago here at IIDB.

Because those forces were below their ability to detect. Draygomb, however, is claiming that psi forces are detectable
As the forces here are perhaps. Just look at the low percentages - could be explained by a very weak force.

in fact, he is claiming they are more powerful than gravity!
Did he? I somehow missed this (I did not read the whole thread)

It's far from clear that a theory explaining the evidence would overturn all other accepted theories.
Only a person who did not understand accepted theories could say this.
Indeed? Please explain.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:13 AM

If a Holocaust denier said the exact same words to you, how would you respond?Unlike You, I read up on subjects which I am inclined to argue about and even some which I am not like the Denial of the Holocaust, for I am interested in The Truth whatever it may be.

Sven

January 19, 2005, 11:18 AM

.Chance process or not, something was skewing the results of the rolls.
That's his claim. Not a fact. But a fact is that he has no clue what "chance" means. And "PK not being a force is either way a huge non sequitur" is also a fact.

Why should it matter what the subject concentrates on so long as it produces results?
Because the more likely explanation for hilarious claims like this is that something went wrong, not that the experiments showed evidence of Psi. A macroscopic violation of causality is a really extraordinary claim, which needs far more evidence than this.

We can turn lead into gold but the process isn't cost effective and therefore worthless. Should we conclude that we don't know how to turn lead into gold? Being useless doesn't make it not real.
Useless in the sense "not being able to study it scientifically".

The data clearly indicates something is going on.
Yes. Probably its just bad experimentation, selection bias etc.

[something went wrong]
:eek: With All of the experiments? :eek:
Yes. Why not? For example a systematic error (such as selection bias) present at all experiments.

If we threw out every experiment that went against the accepted norms, we would still be living in the Dark Ages.
I don't ask for throwing out the results - I ask for a professional conjurer to take a look.

How does proving a theory destroy the credibility of the research?
:rolleyes: The credibility is destroyed by introducing an ad hoc hypotheses which could explain every result.

In the trials where the tapes were viewed before the attemp to influence the data all tapes had results equal to chance.
See below.

No, It merely gives the subject an indication of how well they are doing so they can continue to concentrate in ways that are more effective.
Then there should at least be comparisons to simpler procedures done.
First rule of experimentators: Make the experiment as simple as possible.

Perhaps Control Subject wasn't the best term. What they are refering to is someone who views the data without trying to influence it
That's not what the article said. It said that the subject had no known abibilities, not that he did not try.

They didn't. They let someone else view the data to see if previously viewed data could be effected
Read the bolded part again. They did.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:22 AM

Merely shouting "liar liar pants on fire" is the province of the schoolyard, not a forum for reasoned debate.You, who refuses to examine the evidence and yet continually misrepresents it, have no basis for lecturing anyone on the proprieties of rational discourse.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 11:25 AM

You, who refuses to examine the evidence and yet continually misrepresents it, have no basis for lecturing anyone on the proprieties of rational discourse.
You still have not cited the lie you claim I told.

At this point, your comments are merely insult, in no way useful to the advancement of discussion.

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 11:25 AM

You would read even a single paper that claimed the Holocaust did not occur?

If I were involved in a discussion with someone citing the paper as evidence that the Holocaust did not occur, I would indeed read that paper so that I could attempt to refute the methodologies and data contained therein.

Notice your evasion, above: suddenly the paper is "directly relevant" to the discussion, instead of "directly contradicting all known history and fact."

No evasion, I was just trying to bring the anology closer to home. The subject of discussion was the reliability of the evidence contained within the paper linked by Draygomb. If you would like your comments on said evidence to be taken seriously, you should at least know what the evidence is.

To answer your original question, no, I would not read the entire body of information available on the web that claims the Holocaust happened. Then again, no one has asked you to review all of the information on the web regarding psychic ability. You have only been asked to read the one bit of information that you are currently discussing.

How would you come to the conclusion that there was fraud, incompetence, or observer bias if you are unwilling to even make a cursory examinataion of the evidence?

On the same basis that you conclude all Holocaust deniers are wrong, without bothering to examine their evidence.

I may enter the argument with that conclusion in mind, however, if the person I was arguing with provided a link to an article that was central to their argument, I am sure I would read it so that I could more properly refute the argument.

I do not see any place in this study where anyone is calling for any science to be overturned based on this data.

Then you do not understand science.

It does not require and understanding of science (though I deny your allegation), it simply requires and understanding of the English language, and a willingness to read the paper so that you can see if the call is being made or not.

In fact, some effort was made to reconcile this data with quantumn theory, in particular the collapse of the wave function in the presence of an observer.

See comment, above. You do not understand science, and you most certainly do not understand quantam theory, wave function collapse, or even what physics means by the term "observer."

And you can determine this from my one comment that the person who wrote this paper is attempting to reconcile this data with quantumn theory? You must possess some incredible psychic ability yourself if you are able to determine my level of understanding on the subject of quantumn theory from that statement. I do not intend to get off on a tangent discussing quantumn theory here, and I am not a quantumn physicist, but my understanding of the term "observer" in this context, is any observation made of the particle in question. This can be as simple as the detector placed on slits in the double slit experiment to determine which slit a photon traveled through, but does not include the screen the photon ultimately impacts, as that is not making a direct observation of photon itself. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I do make mistakes, but I try to learn from them.

Did quantumn theory overturn all of physics and science for 300 years when particle/wave duality was first discovered?

I am sorry, but this discussion is simply impossible to conduct with someone who so badly misunderstands the process and history of science. Mind you, I am not asserting that I am an expert, or even particularly knowledgable: I am simply asserting that you are so clueless as to astound and amaze the casual reader.

Now who is being evasive? And this is the point were I finally decide I have had enough of your condescension and characterize you as a pompous bastard.

The parts of science that quantum theory did not overturn were the observations. Galileo dropping balls off the tower of Pisa, etc. However, psi phenomona would require the overturning of observed evidence.

I think you should go back and review Newtonian physics. Much more than just the observations remain intact in the age of quantumn theory. If only the observations remained, we would not be able to perform calculus today.

For example, the four known forces have been observed to a very fine detail. There are machines that count photons one at a time. Why are there no machines that detect psi? Why has physics grappled with gravity, but never even noticed psi? What force is it, exactly, that influences the random number generator, and how? Let me put it another way: if I told you to influence the random number generator in your computer any way you wanted, with electrical probes and hammers and any device you chose, could you do it? Do you even know where in the computer it is, or how to modify it in any way?

Actually I do, and I could code a random number generator for you, after all I am a computer programmer.

No? Then how do you suppose you can influence it with your mind when can't even influence it with your hands

No I do not believe that anyone can do this, what is your point? I have repeatedly stated that I hold no belief in psychic ability. This does not mean I am going to ignore the data if I am in a discussion with someone who believes the data is compelling.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 11:31 AM

Would you have known this before reading the paper or after reading the paper?
Yes, I would - note in my post wherein I made two crushingly critical comments about the paper - both of which you confirmed applied to the paper! Gosh, how did I know in advance that the paper would make those errors? Perhaps I am psychic... or just have a lot of experience.

Just to remind you: You up to now refused to even look at the linked article.
I still haven't, and I won't. I will gladly discuss what you reference here, but I am not going to waste my time reading a stupid paper. I am here to converse, not do homework.

Since I've never seen a "psi theory", I can not comment on this.
The what does the paper even mean? What is it purportedly evidence for?

Meanwhile, I did read the part of the denier of the Holocaust in the debate some months ago here at IIDB.
I'm glad somebody did.

As the forces here are perhaps. Just look at the low percentages - could be explained by a very weak force.
No they can't. When physics says "a very weak force," they mean something a few dozen orders of magnitude smaller than what you mean when you use the term.

Did he? I somehow missed this (I did not read the whole thread)
I do not have time to explain this fully, so I will just say this: the subject's physical body exerts a gravitational influence on the lamp. That influence is known to be inadequate to affect the operation of a lamp, circut, or even a single electron. For the subject to exert a force on the lamp, he must exceed gravity. Ergo, stronger than gravity.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:40 AM

That's not what the article said. It said that the subject had no known abibilities, not that he did not try.Fig. 4. Result of an experiment in which a PK subject (with a history of PK success) and a control subject (with no apparent PK ability) made consecutive PK efforts on the same pre-recorded events. In the half of the runs where the PK subject made the first effort his cumulative score (upper curve) reached a significant level. But in the other half of the runs, where the control subject had seen the outcome of the random events first, the PK subject's effort was no longer successful (lower curve).My apologies.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:41 AM

At this point, your comments are merely insult, in no way useful to the advancement of discussion.Similar to your last 20 posts.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 11:53 AM

I do not have time to explain this fully, so I will just say this: the subject's physical body exerts a gravitational influence on the lamp. That influence is known to be inadequate to affect the operation of a lamp, circut, or even a single electron. For the subject to exert a force on the lamp, he must exceed gravity. Ergo, stronger than gravity.Nobody is suggesting that the lamp or even an electron is being effected, Just wether the random number generator produces an even or an odd number. We're talking Quantum Level here.

mirage

January 19, 2005, 12:11 PM

This may be all the critical appraisal you are willing to give, but then again you appear to be intellectually dishonest and lazy, given your refusal to examine the data. I certainly hope we are done here, and I said that I wouldn't answer posts like this one, but I just can't stand by and let you run roughshod over my posts.

You know what my point is, I have repeated it time and again. Read the fucking paper, or STFU, or continue to be regarded as intellectually dishonest by this poster.
<Sigh>
OK, It seems I need to actually read the thing
<Reads paper...>

Right, It was discussing several studies, I was wrong, I apologise. These findings have certainly not been repeated however.

It's still complete bollocks that I am justified in rejecting out of hand, having some familiarity both with research appraisal and previous claims from parapsychology. Here's why. I'll start with general principles and move on to these random quantum experiments.

Parapsychology has been around for over a century. It is not the study of any particular thing. It is the chase after willow the wisp anomalies by credulous "researchers". Notice how it began by investigating apparitions, clairvoyance, telekineses, etc. of macroscopic real world objects in everyday life. There is now an extremely good model explaining all this everyday life stuff.

Parapsychologists aren't interested in alternative hypotheses. Throughout its history, a set or sets of experiments into one particular aspect (of an incoherent set of random things) of the paranormal have held sway, convinced a large number of people, including academics and sceptics. The experiments have seemed watertight. The flaw or fraud, often very subtle has then been exposed, and parapsychologists promptly shut up about that area and move on.

So the very design of the experiments is selected to allow fraud or flaw that is not easily detected. This is the only criterion, as there is no theory or pattern to the pseudoscience that would otherwise guide experiment. Notice how they started with dice, and are now onto quantum events? There is no relation between a small psi power over quantum effects and the roll of a dice. Yet it was claims about dice that led to these "quantum" experiments! If you can affect a mechanical system in a given way via quantum events, you should have an utterly reliable effect on a quantum one directly. Even then, there is no mechanism to link this power to random macroscopic objects.

The null hypothesis is never given weight. Any factor that could quite reasonably be explained by there being no paranormal power, is explained by ad hoc hypotheses, like the presence of sceptical experimenters "puts subjects off" or that psi powers are very subjective and may be very influenced by subject motivation. Exactly these sort of excuses appear in this article.

Failure of convergence of effects.. Different results are not related in any discernible way. The effects are always tied to the precise experimental set up. This is why simple repetition of the same setup (usually by the same small group of credulous pseudo scientists) does not count as reproducible results. Even given this, these random quantum results have not been independently reproduced by sceptics. A telling point is that when the same "hypothesis", vague as it is, is tested by a different method, the hypothesis is not confirmed. Even standard science experiment without apparent flaw is rejected if it shows an anomalous effect tied only to that specific experiment. Of relevance here is the experiment to test quantum influence of psi subjects, that used instead of the dice machine, light interference. There was no effect. This won't stop pseudo scientists data mining for "anomalies" though.

The whole science is abuse of statistics. They are trying to prove "anomalies" in random data. This is bogus at root. Statistic are idealised mathematic systems aimed at the extraction of large effect sizes from real world data, assuming that the deviation from the ideal of the experiment will be small in comparison. Psi experiments are looking for no such effects. They are effectively just measuring the deviation of real systems from the statistical ideal. This is quite different to measuring the deviation from the theoretical ideal. This is a subtle and extremely important point. Anomalies are not found by examining extremely small effect sizes, they are found by magnifying problems with the existing theory to a significant effect sizes. The high z and p values of these studies are entirely specious. This sort of analysis is not designed for such microscopic effect sizes. A success rate of 70% on coin flips with p value 0.001 is something to explain. A success rate of 50.02% (a more recent figure from accumulated quantum random experiments) is nothing to explain even with p<0.000000000001. They mistake statistical significance with significance. If they want to show an effect, they had better produce a significant effect, not a statistically significant non-effect.

Furthermore, there is no pattern to the anomalies, even in individual experiments. The anomaly in the orbit of Uranus was a very clear, well described, specific anomaly. That led to the discovery of Neptune. Data mining for non-specific statistical "effects" has never produced any discovery.

The "researchers" are incompetent. Radin, who is prominent, and reports the largest statistic anomalies is A FUCKWIT OR DISHONEST in my book. This is because he uses a completely wrong "file drawer" analysis to try to compensate for reporter bias. This is how he can claim that an effect of this significance would need 3300 unreported studies for each actual study if the effect were due only to reporting bias. When doing, a meta analysis, he (and pretty much every para normal who does a meta analysis or even single study) gets completely bogus results. One way that at least some parapsych people use, and therefore I presume he used to get his utterly false figures, is simply to multiply the "unlikeliness factor" of the study to determine the number of non-significant studies that would have to have happened and been unreported for the result to be due to reporting bias. For example, a 1:1000 to one figure for the meta analysis of 20 studies suggests around 1000 unreported studies for each reported one for the effect to be just reporting error, right? Wrong, because >4*10^67 combinations of 20 studies from 20000 are possible. The actual figure is a total of 3 unreported studies (for 1700+ combinations other than the 20 best).

The file drawer analysis they use also assumes that the unreported studies will have zero effect, whereas they would have a slight negative effect, if reporting bias of random effects is the case.

Radin and others have also been caught simply multiplying p values to produce new p values. What they are producing is bullshit of the highest order.

Furthermore (yes, it is worse still) they ignore the Bayes factor (similar likelihood ratio, odds ratio, and increasingly used in medical trials for example. the p and z values greatly underestimate the null hypothesis. This is OK for research where a positive result is quite likely because of supporting theory and evidence. For unknown small likelihoods, the p value is shite and has little statistical quantitative basis for providing support to a hypothesis). This is the extent your prior odds of a hypothesis should be adjusted by your results. A huge analysis of millions of runs that yields a p value of say, 0.01 (a 1:100 likelihood of a chance result) actually supports the null hypothesis! This is (sort of) because a trial of such statistical power not finding a cast iron effect is much less likely than a null hypothesis producing a 1 in a hundred result.

Now why, precisely should a researcher who spends his entire professional life analysing random statistics, who has demonstrated such extreme incompetence and/or dishonesty not simply be dismissed out of hand? I don't give a flying fuck which lab he produced his magic numbers in.

Added to this extreme scepticism of the statistics produced by these researchers is the complete lack of details of the analysis. We don't know how many total "runs" were made and the fraction present in the analysis. We don't know if the figures used for selection of subjects were included in the analysis (this would be a bias). We don't have a damn clue why they analysed the overall result from "blocks" of data in the magnetic tape delay experiments rather than the individual data. If there was an effect, a much higher statistical power would be available for this individual number method. On the other hand you may only be able to extract your artifactual "effect" by their strange and arbitrary method.

Also, Schmidt does not actually test his hypothesis, such as it is. If he thinks that the observer has some special effect on the outcome of past events, then he should have a control where another observer looks at the results unbeknownst to the psychic before the psychic does his stuff, and analyse both sets of data. [Edit - sorry Schmidt, you do this with your magnetic tapes. I'm not happy with the general controls though. ]Perhaps he doesn't because his "theory" is actually not at all supported by QM?

Paranormal research is science perverted and backwards. They don't test hypothesis, they don't converge on patterns, they don't use statistics to reduce bias of real effects, they produce artifacts from statistics. The whole area of research has been one scam and flawed set of experiments after another. There has been no progress even on a way to investigate, let alone proof of any effect. Instead of concluding, like good scientists, that the null hypothesis has been confirmed, they doggedly continue in search of artifact, based on personal conviction and no doubt derived from personal experience of the paranormal. And egged on by the credulous public. They probably have high brain dopamine.

So, to summarise, the whole area of "research" is an incompetent crock of shit, so my decision to rubbish the conclusion that "observers affect random events" based only on the facts that the paper was from parapsychology, 18 yrs old, no details of the stats, did not actually test the hypothesis, and the background knowledge that there have been no recent confirmations or consensus regarding these amazing results,

was entirely justified.

I'm not closed minded. I'm just informed about this sort of thing.

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 12:26 PM

The only intellectual dishonesty here is certain persons pretending that they are disinterested parties, when in fact they are making special exemptions for their sacred cows.

I was a disinterested party in the original topic of discussion. I became interested when I noticed sceptics and atheists in this forum doing what they complain about theists doing. When you present evidence to a creationist that evolution is true, do you not call them to task when they do not even bother to read the evidence? This is exactly what was being done here, and I felt obligated to point that out. I am sorry that you are having trouble seeing this point.

I take it then, that you concede the possibility that the Holocaust was in fact just a Jewish trick. Because you have not read the papers - indeed, I bet you have never read a single paper on the topic - therefore, you cannot dismiss it without violating your standard of intellectual honesty.

I do not concede the possibility, and I have not read a single paper on the subject either. I also have never been engaged in a discussion of the merits of a study on the subject. If I had been, I would have taken the time to familiarize myself with the arguments that are central to that discussion. If this meant that I had to read a paper written by someone who claimed to have data supporting my opponents position, I would do so.

And yet, I suspect you do dismiss Holocaust deniers out of hand. Which reveals the fact that you do not treat all claims equally, despite your strident claims.

See above comments on how I would treat the claim. I also do not believe in God, but when involved in religious discussion I take the time to examine the source material central to the discussion. If this means I have to read portions of the Gospel of Matthew to determine the internal or external inconsistencies and properly present my arguments, then I will do so.

Mirage is not going to read the paper, and neither am I, until somebody explains to us how it could even possibly be true.

Well good for both of you, and I am glad Mirage has appointed you as his spokesperson. Now please do not comment on the veracity of the evidence as you have no intention of examining it.

Again, if I flip a coin and mark it against the stock market, and for one month it conforms exactly (heads when the market is up, tails when it is down), would you bother to read a paper on my data? Absent any mechanism to account for my data, what does it mean? Why, nothing at all. And this is exactly what psi is like - until you have a theory, your data is just random dots on graph paper.

In the scientific method, hypothesis comes before theory, and the theory explains the data, now who is it that does not understand science?

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 12:34 PM

As I understand it, Coming into this discussion you disbelieved in psi. Having read the paper would you now consider psi as possible or at least worthy of more investigation?

Can you totally dismiss the possibility of psi?

I find it difficult to totally dismiss anything (that is why I am a Weak Atheist), however, I would assign a high probability against the existence of psi, and my reading of the paper did not move the needle on my probability meter to any noticable degree.

Bill Snedden

January 19, 2005, 12:45 PM

The whole science is abuse of statistics. They are trying to prove "anomalies" in random data. This is bogus at root. Statistic are idealised mathematic systems aimed at the extraction of large effect sizes from real world data, assuming that the deviation from the ideal of the experiment will be small in comparison. Psi experiments are looking for no such effects. They are effectively just measuring the deviation of real systems from the statistical ideal. This is quite different to measuring the deviation from the theoretical ideal. This is a subtle and extremely important point. Anomalies are not found by examining extremely small effect sizes, they are found by magnifying problems with the existing theory to a significant effect sizes. The high z and p values of these studies are entirely specious. This sort of analysis is not designed for such microscopic effect sizes. A success rate of 70% on coin flips with p value 0.001 is something to explain. A success rate of 50.02% (a more recent figure from accumulated quantum random experiments) is nothing to explain even with p<0.000000000001. They mistake statistical significance with significance. If they want to show an effect, they had better produce a significant effect, not a statistically significant non-effect.
While I would agree with you that this particular point (an anomaly of .02% with p<.000000000001) is not actually evidence for the existence of psi, the significance of the effect really is irrelevant in terms of the question that's being asked.

The hypothesis is that outcomes of coin flips can be "psychically" manipulated by observers. Whether the effect of manipulation is 20% or .02% is irrelevant; any deviation from the expected outcome (given classical statistics) has to be explainable in some way. The likelihood that an observed effect with p<.000000000001 is not due to chance is 99.9999999999%, right? Given that, it's extremely reasonable to assume that there must be some type of causal relationship involved.

But all that the low p-values tell us is that the effect we're observing is due to a non-random cause. They don't tell us that the cause is necessarily the one we're observing. And this goes back to a point Vork was making earlier regarding experimental design. How likely is it that a more conventional explanation exists, especially considering the small effect observed?

Perhaps this is more what you meant by your observation that this seemed to be abuse of statistics? Given the tiny effect observed, we should perhaps be looking as much to the design of the experiments as we should to attribute the effect to the cause under investigation. For instance, in the case of coin flips, could it not be the case that the coin being used wasn't perfectly balanced? Or that the flipping mechanism introduced a bias in the result? I didn't notice in what I read any information on how the instruments used in the experiments were calibrated. Did they carry out tests absent any observers to ensure that the machines functioned to statistical norms prior to introducing observers? And how did they ensure that the machines continued to function properly throughout the experiment (IOW, that they didn't go out of calibration for the duration)?

IOW, we've certainly observed something real, but what does it mean? Certainly a more prosaic explanation is to be preferred (Occam's razor, after all) to one that requires a complete overhaul of physics.

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 12:53 PM

I'm not going to read a stupid paper. But I am quite happy to read your well-written and witty review. Thank you!

(BTW, this is what we were asking Draygomb to do - read the paper and present it as part of his conversation. We are here to converse, not do homework.)

If this were true, I would have no problem with what was done. Can you please point to the specific post where anyone asked Draygomb to do this? RGD asked for citations, and Draygomb cited the study. Post Tenebras Lux actually asked for "references for us to pore over". Draygomb provided the reference material. Gliptic asked Dray to cite a study that supports his position, this was done. Once the study was cited, Draygomb was attacked by people who did not bother to read the study, no one asked him to paraphrase the information contained therein. This is where I decided to step in and offer my views on how fairly Dray was being treated.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 12:56 PM

My whole point in bringing this up was that we can't conclusively prove that consciousness is entirely contained within the physical brain.
Therefore it is an agruement best not entered into.
Especially when there are much better arguements against god.

mirage

January 19, 2005, 01:16 PM

While I would agree with you that this particular point (an anomaly of .02% with p<.000000000001) is not actually evidence for the existence of psi, the significance of the effect really is irrelevant in terms of the question that's being asked.It is highly relevant. It precludes the use of science. As you converge down to tiny effect sizes the disparity of reality from idealised statistical systems becomes increasingly magnified and all attempts at control are futile. If there was any effect, there would be an experiment to measure an actual effect. Notice how it began with dice and is now down to individual atoms. It doesn't matter if you do have 51% control over quantum events. That won't give you any dice power at all. So is it just a fluke that the researchers have stumbled on these quantum effects? What possible link is there with previous psi research? The whole premise of the experiments is bullshit produced in response to all macro research having been debunked.

The hypothesis is that outcomes of coin flips can be "psychically" manipulated by observers. Whether the effect of manipulation is 20% or .02% is irrelevant; any deviation from the expected outcome (given classical statistics) has to be explainable in some way.Chance explains it perfectly well. Combine it with uncontrollable experimental bias, incompetence in statistics, reporting bias and fraud and you have an excellent explanation. The likelihood that an observed effect with p<.000000000001 is not due to chance is 99.9999999999%, right? Given that, it's extremely reasonable to assume that there must be some type of causal relationship involved.Firstly you are not looking for "some type of causal relationship". That includes experimental systematic bias and fraud. You are looking for control by the subject.

Secondly, p values are highly suspect for this sort of data. They don't help much with hypothesis changing for small prior odds. Look up Jeffrey's paradox. Erm..<google, google>here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:azb-_-WgoDIJ:quasar.as.utexas.edu/papers/reg.ps+%22jeffreys+paradox%22&hl=en)

But all that the low p-values tell us is that the effect we're observing is due to a non-random cause. They don't tell us that the cause is necessarily the one we're observing. And this goes back to a point Vork was making earlier regarding experimental design. How likely is it that a more conventional explanation exists, especially considering the small effect observed?Exactly. But even the p values (not that I trust their analysis one bit) give a gross underestimate of the "chance" null hypothesis.

Perhaps this is more what you meant by your observation that this seemed to be abuse of statistics? Given the tiny effect observed, we should perhaps be looking as much to the design of the experiments as we should to attribute the effect to the cause under investigation. For instance, in the case of coin flips, could it not be the case that the coin being used wasn't perfectly balanced? Or that the flipping mechanism introduced a bias in the result? I didn't notice in what I read any information on how the instruments used in the experiments were calibrated. Did they carry out tests absent any observers to ensure that the machines functioned to statistical norms prior to introducing observers? And how did they ensure that the machines continued to function properly throughout the experiment (IOW, that they didn't go out of calibration for the duration)?I don't know the details, but they do put a fair bit of effort into making sure the machines are random. They rely on a computer count combined with Geiger counted atom decay. I don't know what intra-experimental controls against bias drift are. I would like to see them blindly select subjects out of a pool consisting of cardboard cutouts, and see if any of them were "exceptional performers"! But since they don't actually test any hypothesis, they won't.

Your point about the chance of flaw or fraud being increasingly important in experiments of microscopic effect and with tiny tiny prior odds based on all conventional science, is well made.

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 01:26 PM

mirage

January 19, 2005, 01:29 PM

I think you should go back and review Newtonian physics. Last time I checked it didn't explain the orbit of mercury too well. Much more than just the observations remain intact in the age of quantumn theory. If only the observations remained, we would not be able to perform calculus today.Erm...what has a mathematical theorem to do with scientific theory? Was it based on observations too?

It isn't a question of a single paper or a whole bunch of them. It's more to do with the way science works. It does not extract a microscopic effect from trawling random data with no fixed hypothesis, and no need to do so given every other observation.

When science spots an anomaly, it is just "there" in your face and poses a problem for the current theory. It manifests in specific and consistent ways in different phenomena. It is measurable and has definite characteristics of behaviour.

Experiments are made to test any new hypothesis in such a way that the effect is decisive on the outcome. Not 50.02% decisive. The experiments are repeated with different setups. Then the hypothesis is investigated from other angles. New predictions are generated.

Parapsychology hasn't got as far as establishing that there is a problem.

mirage

January 19, 2005, 01:34 PM

Thank you Mirage for your cogent reply after having examined the evidence. It is already evident that such posts by yourself, and the others who have chosen to examine the evidence, have increased the level of discourse on this subject.

I would like to apologize to everyone for any name calling I may be guilty of in this discussion, but my frustration got the better of me when it seemed that people were intentionally missing my point.No problem, I can very much sympathise with your anxiety to see sceptics open mindedly assess both sides of an argument. My rather dismissive response was based on evidence, but not any that I had explained. I'm sure the point you were making is more important than any I have just made.

Ulrich

January 19, 2005, 01:41 PM

Erm...what has a mathematical theorem to do with scientific theory? Was it based on observations too?

Newton designed calculus as an aid to physics. Yahtzi made the contention that all that remains from Newtonian physics are the observations. Calculus is definately not an observation, and yet it still remains. Thus Yahtzi was wrong in his contention.

Draygomb

January 19, 2005, 01:42 PM

I don't know the details, but they do put a fair bit of effort into making sure the machines are random.That's what always gets me. If the machine is random when no one is trying to influence it, but slightly favors whichever outcome is desired when someone is trying to influence it, doesn't that indicate something PKish is going on?

I believe the report says 9 times out of 10 the results skew towards the desired result. 5 out of 10 would be chance.

mirage

January 19, 2005, 01:52 PM

Bill Snedden

January 19, 2005, 02:00 PM

It is highly relevant. It precludes the use of science. As you converge down to tiny effect sizes the disparity of reality from idealised statistical systems becomes increasingly magnified and all attempts at control are futile. If there was any effect, there would be an experiment to measure an actual effect. Notice how it began with dice and is now down to individual atoms. It doesn't matter if you do have 51% control over quantum events. That won't give you any dice power at all. So is it just a fluke that the researchers have stumbled on these quantum effects? What possible link is there with previous psi research? The whole premise of the experiments is bullshit produced in response to all macro research having been debunked.
But it doesn't matter if the results give you "dice power" or not; if they're real, they're real regardless of how small they might be. Even if the effect of observation on reality has no impact other than with random noise generators or the behavior of single atoms, and were only marginal at that, it would still be a real effect.

I think your point about tiny effect sizes and the difference between reality and statistical expectations is well taken, however. That's part of what I was attempting to say: that the ability to assert that one has adequate control over the experiment such that one can reliably and realistically detect such tiny effects is exceedingly weak.
Secondly, p values are highly suspect for this sort of data. They don't help much with hypothesis changing for small prior odds. Look up Jeffrey's paradox. Erm..<google, google>here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:azb-_-WgoDIJ:quasar.as.utexas.edu/papers/reg.ps+%22jeffreys+paradox%22&hl=en)
That's an excellent link and thank you very much. It seems to clarify much of what you were saying (for me, anyway).

Essentially, I was objecting to what seemed to me an attitude that the "reality" of an effect was somehow related to it's size. That an effect of .02% wasn't real simply because it was .02%, regardless of p-value.

But I think I see now that what you're really questioning is the actual significance of the p-values involved due to the many, many problems inherent in the methodology and that these, coupled with the tiny size of the effect, render the results questionable on many levels. In that, I concur completely.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 02:32 PM

Nobody is suggesting that the lamp or even an electron is being effected, Just wether the random number generator produces an even or an odd number. We're talking Quantum Level here.
And here we have all we need to know about this experiment.

I assure you, Dray, that the random number generater was not affected by quantum level events. It is possible to construct a quantum level random generator, but no such device was used in this experiment, a fact I know in advance without even looking at the paper.

[ EDIT: Given the discussion of gieger counters, I could be wrong on this. Nonetheless, the point remains: the subjects did not concentrate on the random decay of the radioactive source, let alone on any particular atom in that source; they concentrated on the random number generator after the gieger clicks were counted, which is a non-quantum level device. ]

You do not understand how random number generators work, in general, or in the specific case of the experiment. You do not understand the relationship between quantum level events and macro level events. Note that these are not ad homs but simple statements of fact, derived from your posts.

Now in your case, this isn't terribly important; but it is clear the authors of the paper did not understand these issues either, which renders the entire paper moot from first principles.

Which was our entire point.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 02:45 PM

IWhen you present evidence to a creationist that evolution is true, do you not call them to task when they do not even bother to read the evidence? This is exactly what was being done here, and I felt obligated to point that out. I am sorry that you are having trouble seeing this point.
I am having trouble seeing the point because it is not the point. What we do to creationists is say, "look, there is a staggering wealth of scientific writings supporting and explaining evolution. Just read any of it." What Draygomb was doing was saying, "Look, I have a single paper that contradicts all of known science. Why won't you read it?"

Furthermore, we are happy to explain the general theory of evolution, only resorting to papers and such when people ask for specific evidence for specific problems. Again, the opposite of what is occurring here, where we are asked to look at specific data before we discuss the general theory!

I do not concede the possibility, and I have not read a single paper on the subject either. I also have never been engaged in a discussion of the merits of a study on the subject. If I had been, I would have taken the time to familiarize myself with the arguments that are central to that discussion.
In case you missed, the rest of us ARE familiar with the arguments central to the discussion. Again, recall that I offered 2 valid criticisms of the paper before it was discussed. How do you suppose I knew the paper would make those mistakes?

I am sorry you do not have the education or experience of other people on this board, but that does not give you the right to take them to task for knowing something you don't.

Well good for both of you, and I am glad Mirage has appointed you as his spokesperson.
It's not Mirage or my position I am speaking for, it is common sense.

Now please do not comment on the veracity of the evidence as you have no intention of examining it.
I don't need to examine it to tell you what is wrong with it. I already told you 2 things wrong with it, which you discovered for yourself upon examination.

Dude, if it smells like manure, and looks like manure, I don't have to taste it to know it's manure.

In the scientific method, hypothesis comes before theory, and the theory explains the data, now who is it that does not understand science?
So where is the hypothesis? You read the paper: please tell us what hypothesis it advances. Note: It cannot be the hypothesis that "people can influence random number generators," because does not tell us how they can. That is a result, not a hypothesis.

Yahzi

January 19, 2005, 02:54 PM

Can you please point to the specific post where anyone asked Draygomb to do this?
No, I just took it for granted that it was obvious. If someone asked for a reference and then didn't read it, then yes, your objections would be warranted.

Naked Ape

January 19, 2005, 10:57 PM

That's what always gets me. If the machine is random when no one is trying to influence it, but slightly favors whichever outcome is desired when someone is trying to influence it, doesn't that indicate something PKish is going on?

I believe the report says 9 times out of 10 the results skew towards the desired result. 5 out of 10 would be chance.
Dragomb,
5 out of 10 would be a perfectly balanced distribution of yes/no results. (And I would wager that such a ballanced distribution is quite rare in such small sample sizes. Small samples yield shaky statistics.

OK, Here are the Z-values that you are representing as demonstrating PK "nine times out of ten" :
(1.7, 0.4, 0.5, 0.3, 1.75, 1.25, 1.30, 0.95, -0.2, 1.25)
{I did my best to read this off the chart in your original linked document.}

Here is a Z-table, and here is an explanation of z-scores and other stats for those playing along at home ;) (http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/stat/6/relativestanding.htm)
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|_Z_|_0.00_|_0.01_|_0.02_|_0.03_|_0.04_|_0.05_|_0.06_|_0.07_|_0.08_|_0.09_|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.0|0.0000|0.0040|0.0080|0.0120|0.0160|0.0199|0.0239|0.0279|0.0319|0.0359|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.1|0.0398|0.0438|0.0478|0.0517|0.0557|0.0596|0.0636|0.0675|0.0714|0.0753|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.2|0.0793|0.0832|0.0871|0.0910|0.0948|0.0987|0.1026|0.1064|0.1103|0.1141|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.3|0.1179|0.1217|0.1255|0.1293|0.1331|0.1368|0.1406|0.1443|0.1480|0.1517|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.4|0.1554|0.1591|0.1628|0.1664|0.1700|0.1736|0.1772|0.1808|0.1844|0.1879|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.5|0.1915|0.1950|0.1985|0.2019|0.2054|0.2088|0.2123|0.2157|0.2190|0.2224|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.6|0.2257|0.2291|0.2324|0.2357|0.2389|0.2422|0.2454|0.2486|0.2517|0.2549|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.7|0.2580|0.2611|0.2642|0.2673|0.2704|0.2734|0.2764|0.2794|0.2823|0.2852|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.8|0.2881|0.2910|0.2939|0.2967|0.2995|0.3023|0.3051|0.3078|0.3106|0.3133|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|0.9|0.3159|0.3186|0.3212|0.3238|0.3264|0.3289|0.3315|0.3340|0.3365|0.3389|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.0|0.3413|0.3438|0.3461|0.3485|0.3508|0.3531|0.3554|0.3577|0.3599|0.3621|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.1|0.3643|0.3665|0.3686|0.3708|0.3729|0.3749|0.3770|0.3790|0.3810|0.3830|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.2|0.3849|0.3869|0.3888|0.3907|0.3925|0.3944|0.3962|0.3980|0.3997|0.4015|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.3|0.4032|0.4049|0.4066|0.4082|0.4099|0.4115|0.4131|0.4147|0.4162|0.4177|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.4|0.4192|0.4207|0.4222|0.4236|0.4251|0.4265|0.4279|0.4292|0.4306|0.4319|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.5|0.4332|0.4345|0.4357|0.4370|0.4382|0.4394|0.4406|0.4418|0.4429|0.4441|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.6|0.4452|0.4463|0.4474|0.4484|0.4495|0.4505|0.4515|0.4525|0.4535|0.4545|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.7|0.4554|0.4564|0.4573|0.4582|0.4591|0.4599|0.4608|0.4616|0.4625|0.4633|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.8|0.4641|0.4649|0.4656|0.4664|0.4671|0.4678|0.4686|0.4693|0.4699|0.4706|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|1.9|0.4713|0.4719|0.4726|0.4732|0.4738|0.4744|0.4750|0.4756|0.4761|0.4767|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|
|2.0|0.4772|0.4778|0.4783|0.4788|0.4793|0.4798|0.4803|0.4808|0.4812|0.4817|
|---+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------|

Definition: z-value: It is the distance between a selected value and the population mean in units of the standard deviation.
Here are those amazing z-scores again: (1.7, 0.4, 0.5, 0.3, 1.75, 1.25, 1.30, 0.95, -0.2, 1.25)
Now using the javascript z score probability calculator found here (http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/analysis/zCalc.html):
Given z = 1.7 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.044565 or about one in 22.
Given z = 0.4 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.344578 or about one in 3.
Given z = 0.5 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.308538 or about one in 3.
Given z = 0.3 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.382088 or about one in 3.
Given z = 1.75 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.040059 or about one in 25.
Given z = 1.25 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.10565 or about one in 9.
Given z = 1.3 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.0968 or about one in 10.
Given z = 0.95 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.171056 or about one in .
Given z = -0.2 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.42074 or about one in 2.
Given z = 1.35 The chance probability, Q, is: 0.088508 or about one in 11.

Do you think these results are impressive? If so, can you tell us what the impressive part is supposed to be? A one in 25 chance is not what I consider amazing and or spooky score.

Is there something that I am not getting here? Ulrich? Anyone?

Cheers,

Naked Ape :eek:

post tenebras lux

January 20, 2005, 05:51 AM

Please see my long post. I don't trust their statistics any further than I can throw them. Where is this "promising subject" who scored >52%? Why hasn't done that at labs all over the world? Why when sceptics reproduce the experiments do they show no effects?

Even if it were somehow possible to rule out poor stats, subtle experimental bias and reporter bias, the bottom line is that they are much more likely to be simply lying than that PK exists.

I would actually quite like there to be some airy fairly QM interpretation that makes consciousness special. I would really like there to be cheap cold fusion power. But there isn't. If there was an effect, we would know about it, and I mean know.
I’d been pondering that as well. Assuming that there is nothing special about us humans (other than that we have opposable thumbs and can use rational thought to work out that: Hey! We can use rational thought!), then is there any plausible reason why evolution would not have taken advantage of this phenomena?

The paper claimed to have detected the ability of some humans to use an unknown (or misunderstood) intuitive force omni-directionally.

The force is intuitive in that even though the subjects were only trying to influence a lamp or screen, the force followed the causality back to its source in radioactive decay, and influenced the final outcome that way.

The force is omni-directional, because even though the subjects were concentrating on the lamp or screen – and presumably looking only at the lamp or screen – the influence of the force was felt by a radioactive source situated not just in a different place, but also in a different time, so the subjects don’t seem to have been consciously focusing this force.

So, if we humans, as bog standard animals, have this power: why hasn’t evolution latched onto the effect? Animal with this psi power wants something; the mere wanting of it positively influences whether it gets it; therefore psi powers would be selected for.

Some species must have obtained use of this psi power first and there should be evidence of this.
If other species also obtained this psi power and used it (aggressively or defensively) against another psi equipped species there would have been a psi power evolutionary arms race and there should be evidence of this
Just as fish who live in caves lose their sight, if we humans are not using this power for our advantage, then it would have also been lost and these guys shouldn’t have been able to detect it (unless we’re special and have only just stopped using it: then why did we stop using it?).

So no sign of it in the animal kingdom.

The same applies to the purely human realm (i.e. if it were claimed that the use of this psi power is emergent and relies upon consciousness or somesuch): Which human race is ‘the lucky race’? Which tribe can just hold out a hand and an apple will just ‘happen’ to drop off the tree and land in it? Any such ‘luck’ gene would surely have been positively selected for.

Luxie

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 08:55 AM

Dragomb,
5 out of 10 would be a perfectly balanced distribution of yes/no results. (And I would wager that such a ballanced distribution is quite rare in such small sample sizes. Small samples yield shaky statistics.

Do you think these results are impressive? If so, can you tell us what the impressive part is supposed to be? A one in 25 chance is not what I consider amazing and or spooky score.If the random number generator is properly calibrated with nobody trying to influence it the odds of a single trial being positive or negative should be 50%. So the odds of 9 trials coming up positive is .5^9 or 0.1953125% or <.2% or 1 in 500

Still not conclusive but much more note worthy then 1 in 25.
What they should be looking for is a shift in the standard distribution.
What they need is 2 RNG's each giving a value from 0 to 5. If they add those numbers together they should generate a standard bell curve with a mean of 5. A mean of 6 would indicate PK exists.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 09:09 AM

Some species must have obtained use of this psi power first and there should be evidence of this.
If other species also obtained this psi power and used it (aggressively or defensively) against another psi equipped species there would have been a psi power evolutionary arms race and there should be evidence of this:) If psi were as powerful as it is in the movies I'd agree with you.
But psi seems to be a relatively weak force. Benefical enough to get passed down but not enough to create an arms race. Plus it still remains to be seen whether or not other species possess the ability.

post tenebras lux

January 20, 2005, 09:13 AM

If the random number generator is properly calibrated with nobody trying to influence it the odds of a single trial being positive or negative should be 50%. So the odds of 9 trials coming up positive is .5^9 or 0.1953125% or <.2% or 1 in 500

Still not conclusive but much more note worthy then 1 in 25.
What they should be looking for is a shift in the standard distribution.
What they need is 2 RNG's each giving a value from 0 to 5. If they add those numbers together they should generate a standard bell curve with a mean of 5. A mean of 6 would indicate PK exists.
Well no, because if 9 out of 10 come up, one didn't and it can be anywhere in the ten trials: so times your figure by ten.
It is usually considered naughty to ignore the fact that people would also jump on 9 out of 10 negative results as a 'proof' of something: so double your new figure.
This is now approx 1 in 25.

Additionally, would you have accepted 8 out of 10 if that had been the result?

Luxie

post tenebras lux

January 20, 2005, 09:21 AM

:) If psi were as powerful as it is in the movies I'd agree with you.
But psi seems to be a relatively weak force. Benefical enough to get passed down but not enough to create an arms race. Plus it still remains to be seen whether or not other species possess the ability.
It doesn't matter. If it gives any advantage - even if only a 0.2% one - it will be selected for and spread though the population. Rinse and repeat enough times and you'll have strong psi power.
Do you think the electric eel's electric powers started out strong and fully formed or - rather - as a relatively weak force?

If other species do not possess this ability then you are suggesting that humans are 'special' or 'different'. We are not special, except for our opposable thumbs and our ability for rational thought. So, shouldn't you either select one of these two special facts about humans, and use it to explain why only humans appear to possess this ability, or agree that this has all the hallmarks of an attempt at special pleading?

Why us, and why now? And how did this ability come about, if not by evolution?

Luxie

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 09:26 AM

Given the discussion of gieger counters, I could be wrong on this.You Are. Nonetheless, the point remains: the subjects did not concentrate on the random decay of the radioactive source, let alone on any particular atom in that source; they concentrated on the random number generator after the gieger clicks were counted, which is a non-quantum level device. ]Again, Why should that matter if the effect is still noticed?
You do not understand how random number generators work, in general, or in the specific case of the experiment. You do not understand the relationship between quantum level events and macro level events. Note that these are not ad homs but simple statements of fact, derived from your posts.I derive from this that you don't understand how to derive a proper conclusion. How could you possibly Know anything about my knowledge of RNG's when I haven't posted anything about their inner workings? :rolleyes:

RGD

January 20, 2005, 09:28 AM

I derive from this that you don't understand how to derive a proper conclusion. How could you possibly Know anything about my knowledge of RNG's when I haven't posted anything about their inner workings? :rolleyes:

Elementary, my dear Watson: you imply that quantum events can affect them. This is wrong, therefore you don't know much about RNGs. :)

mirage

January 20, 2005, 09:28 AM

If the random number generator is properly calibrated with nobody trying to influence it the odds of a single trial being positive or negative should be 50%. So the odds of 9 trials coming up positive is .5^9 or 0.1953125% or <.2% or 1 in 500This isn't true. Any combination of nine positive count, not just 9 in row! Divide by ten. [Edit -Oops! Sorry to repeat Luxie's point]
The point is in your first word "if". It's a very big if. Because if there was an effect it would actually have been confirmed by now by sceptics and people with half a clue about statistics. It would show up in different experiments designed to affect quantum behaviour, like the attempt to use light interference patterns. You have to see the bigger picture here. Time always tells, the verdict is in. There is nothing there.

What they need is 2 RNG's each giving a value from 0 to 5. If they add those numbers together they should generate a standard bell curve with a mean of 5. A mean of 6 would indicate PK exists.The effects "demonstrated" have been nowhere near that large. What has been demonstrated is that the researchers are incompetent with a strong bias and vested interest towards positive results. The experiments have not been replicated and they are certainly due to one or some of: fraud, subtle systematic bias, fluke, improper collection of data, improper recording of data, improper statistical analysis, reporting bias, any other natural cause.

mirage

January 20, 2005, 09:31 AM

Elementary, my dear Watson: you imply that quantum events can affect them. This is wrong, therefore you don't know much about RNGs. :)
The RNGs here were triggered by single atom decay detected by Geiger counter, although the subjects focused on the lamp, so there needs to be some ad hoc backwards causality explanation too. Also, the decay event interupted a fast (~100/sec) electronic count to determine which lamp was lit, so the timing of the PK effect would have needed to be spot on!

The complete lack of association of any effect with the supposed mechanism or manner of PK action is of course strong evidence that PK is not the cause of the reported effects.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 09:49 AM

It doesn't matter. If it gives any advantage - even if only a 0.2% one - it will be selected for and spread though the population. Rinse and repeat enough times and you'll have strong psi power. Not if it has to compete with other advantages that provide better survival rates. Plus you're overlooking the possibility that psi may require a more advanced brain. In which case maybe advanced brains are the effect of the psi gene. :huh: Maybe it's what gives us consciousness or selfawareness. :huh: We just don't know.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 09:58 AM

One thing I want to bring up. Although I've extremely skeptical of Psi, the comment made regarding an evolutionary arms race seems to assume we couldn't be the first to pick up a weak version of it, like the first "electric" eels as mentioned in the example.

However, the fact that as someone else noted, this power would have to be greater than the force of gravity means this is all, on the part of Psi supporters, nothing more than wishful thinking. These test are much like the tests regarding the effectiveness of prayer being conducted by "The Organization for the Resurgence of Prayer Based Healing Association". The parties responsible for the test has a strong desire to have the results return positively. Unfortunately, it is impossible to separate the very slight statistical evidence from the very slight opportunity someone would have to influence the data.

Considering its not repeatable, or reliable even in the midst of one of the "positive" sessions, should be evidence enough that this doesn't deserve to be considered evidence for the existence of PK.

Someone said a mean of 6 on the previous test would show that PK exists. Are you kidding? A number game would be proof of PK? Hardly. Remember that the chance for -any- given sequence of numbers, as seen retrospectively, is identical. A mean of 6 after thousands of tests is no more or less likely than a mean of 5, or 2 even.

No, it is not what we would expect, as we would expect the numbers to spread over the entire gamut of available choices thanks to randomness, but that is a human expectation. Its the flaw of many a gambler. "Oh man, we're DUE for a 7..."

In fact no, you're not DUE for a 7. You're due for another random number. 10,000 5's in a row wouldn't prove PK. It would become a peculiar footnote in a textbook somewhere, but it wouldn't prove anything relating to PK except in the mind of those who have fallen prey to our human inclination to perceive an anthropomorphic cause to strange effects.

We have no planet’s orbit being affected by gravity to explain, no fossil record begging for a theory to provide that first step in understanding their placement. All we have is a series of numbers that already has a perfectly valid theory behind their existence. Creationism, in any of its forms, goes against what was seen in the fossil record. The ideas of astronomy at the time didn’t provide a theory as to why the orbit would be elliptical instead of circular. These observations begged for new theories to explain them. A series of random numbers begs no new theory. They’re numbers, they’re generated, and any outcome they give you is just as likely as any other in retrospect.

Find something begging for real explanation and then return to push for acceptance of Psi as a force/power/magic worthy of consideration.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 10:02 AM

The complete lack of association of any effect with the supposed mechanism or manner of PK action is of course strong evidence that PK is not the cause of the reported effects.:banghead: But that's what we're looking for. :banghead:

The whole point of these studies is to prove whether or not there is an effect.
Future studies can then be conducted to determine How desire is associated with the RNG.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 10:05 AM

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 10:13 AM

:banghead: But that's what we're looking for. :banghead:

The whole point of these studies is to prove whether or not there is an effect.
Future studies can then be conducted to determine How desire is associated with the RNG.

:banghead: (I'll join you)

Random numbers can not prove an effect. It's a flawed test from the start. I'll even go to the extreme here.

Jane wants 1,000 5s in a row. 1,000 5s in a row come from the rng.
Joe wants 1,000 4s in a row. 1,000 4s in a row come from the rng.
Bob wants 1,000 7s in a row. 1,000 7s in a row come from the rng.
Sue wants 1,000 10s in a row, 1,000 10s in a row come from the rng.

Jane, Joe, Bob and Sue all claim to have Psi powers.

What was just proven? Nothing.

A valid, testable and explanatory theory as to how those numbers came to be 1,000 5's, 4's, 7's and then 10's is already in place. They came to be, through a quirk of randomness, as they were. It is no more remarkable an acheivement than if she wanted a rather eccentric stream of "1,3,5,5,6,2,5,7,8,2,4,6,8,9,10,...." and it came from the rng.

It is also no more remarkable than if she wanted all 5s and the scrambled stream of numbers came from the rng. There is no need for an outside force to explain the results. It is, scientifically, a fluke of randomness until someone can propose a mechanism for the numbers to be affected by the four claimed Psi people.

Without a mechanism to get the rng to generate what they want, we already have an explanation for the data. Sure, it's one that to us seems a rather remarkable fit of circumstance, but our explanation still works. There is no reason why it is impossible for it to have come about that way.

In other words: Come up with a better test to find an effect of Psi, or provide a mechanism for Psi to work in this particular test.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 10:20 AM

Someone said a mean of 6 on the previous test would show that PK exists. Are you kidding? A number game would be proof of PK? Hardly. Remember that the chance for -any- given sequence of numbers, as seen retrospectively, is identical. A mean of 6 after thousands of tests is no more or less likely than a mean of 5, or 2 even.You're clearly overlooking that I said to add the 2 random numbers together or are ignorant of the effect that has on number distribution.

Giving a distribution of

0
11
222
3333
44444
555555
66666
7777
888
99
@

Yahzi

January 20, 2005, 10:21 AM

So no sign of it in the animal kingdom.
Sure there is. Don't you know that animals always know when earthquakes are coming? And they knew to run from the tsunami.

And of course, dogs know when their owners are coming home. Just ask the Pet Psychic!

:D

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 10:25 AM

No, neither is the case. The fact is you're doing what gamblers tend to do. They look at numbers in retrospect and pretend (when talking of random generation at least) it provides them some guide as to what comes next.

It doesn't.

Flipping 50,000 heads in a row isn't any more or less likely than flipping an even and scrambled distribution of 25,000 tails and 25,000 heads, not as a sequence.

An RNG producing:

1,5,6,8,3,2,4,8,9,7,5 (one of them)
3,4,7,8,2,9,2,8,5,6,4 (the other)

Is just as likely as one producing:
5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 (one of them)
6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 (the other)

There is no difference in the likelihood of those two sets of sequences from an RNG.

So claiming, that whatever result of your sequence being one number instead of another is evidence of anything like Psi doesn't work. Sequences of numbers from an RNG are what they are. We have an explanation in place that explains them perfectly. In order to introduce Psi into HOW they came to be what they are, its time to propose a mechanism for Psi to affect the RNG.

Yahzi

January 20, 2005, 10:27 AM

Why should that matter if the effect is still noticed?
I refer you again to the coin-flipping experiment. Why should it matter that I only flipped a coin, as long as the effect of matching the stock market was noticed?

When you can explain to me why coin-flipping - however accurate - is not a valid stock market analysis, then will understand why an experiment that requires you to concentrate on changing a lamp when in fact you needed to concentrate on changning a radioactive source is not valid.

I derive from this that you don't understand how to derive a proper conclusion. How could you possibly Know anything about my knowledge of RNG's when I haven't posted anything about their inner workings? :rolleyes:
This has been answered, so I won't repeat it.

Suffice to say, I am not particularly surprised to see that you do not understand natural selection, either.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 10:49 AM

In order to introduce Psi into HOW they came to be what they are, its time to propose a mechanism for Psi to affect the RNG. :Cheeky: Ok, I propose that everything is connected by Ether and that a certain level of consciousness allows beings to send out a wave of desire through the ether which collapses the propability wave of unobserved and otherwise random events so they favor the desired outcome. :Cheeky: Now What?

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 10:51 AM

Now what? I'd say now it is time to find evidence for the ether you propose exists. ;)

post tenebras lux

January 20, 2005, 11:06 AM

Not if it has to compete with other advantages that provide better survival rates. Plus you're overlooking the possibility that psi may require a more advanced brain. In which case maybe advanced brains are the effect of the psi gene. :huh: Maybe it's what gives us consciousness or selfawareness. :huh: We just don't know.
Are you copping out Draygomb?

Unless it is the psi gene itself that confers negative survival rates for non-psi related reasons then:
1) we'd either learn to live with it (ref. sickle cell anemia's cause)
2) the psi-gene would die out (ref. blind fish in caves)

If you're trying to have the psi gene competing against traits caused by other genes: you're really messing up gene theory (ref. I take the psi gene from my dad and the other 'good' gene from my mum: I go forth and multiply. My siblings, who got the non-psi gene from my mum and the non-'good' version of the other gene from my dad: they die out).

For your second point (where you just don't know :huh: ), I'll just repost a bit of me:
If other species do not possess this ability then you are suggesting that humans are 'special' or 'different'. We are not special, except for our opposable thumbs and our ability for rational thought. So, shouldn't you either select one of these two special facts about humans, and use it to explain why only humans appear to possess this ability, or agree that this has all the hallmarks of an attempt at special pleading?

So Draygomb: are you taking the special pleading option or what?
If you're not, then please give me some connection from self awareness to psi powers, whilst at the same time avoiding speculating on some new human organ not present in non-psi animals - unless you can point to said new organ.

Luxie

post tenebras lux

January 20, 2005, 11:12 AM

:Cheeky: Ok, I propose that everything is connected by Ether and that a certain level of consciousness allows beings to send out a wave of desire through the ether which collapses the propability wave of unobserved and otherwise random events so they favor the desired outcome. :Cheeky: Now What?
Now what?

Well now you include evolution into your working and see if it still makes sense.

If psi power is an advantage, it will be selected for, whether it causes the psi equivalent of sickle cell anemia in double doses or not. Any gene that enhances the effect of said psi gene would also be selected for. Etc. etc. leading pdq to stronger psi powers and people breaking the bank at Monte Carlo every other weekend.

Then again, that could be why no-one has publically followed up on this research: The Mob has either bought them out or given them some concrete shoes.

Luxie

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 11:43 AM

:rolleyes: Look, I've proven there are studies which have been publish in the journals of science which state that PK can effect the results obtained from RNG's.

That was my claim and that's All I'm responsible for.

You can ask me stupid questions and I can speculate til the cows come home, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

All I'm saying is that when someone claims that consciousness might not reside in the physical brain you should give them some lee way and take them to task for something else.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 12:02 PM

Look, I've proven there are studies which have been publish in the journals of science which state that PK can effect the results obtained from RNG's.

You have? "that PK can effect" ? You've shown studies that I think we've proven to be flawed from their inception, making what I would consider elementary mistakes in analyzing historical numbers and their relationships. These are the same mistakes that creationist "scientists" make when fighting their crusade against evolution, the very same mistakes just in a different context.

That was my claim and that's All I'm responsible for.

I'm afraid you're also responsible for the claims you made about what certain number results would prove in relation to PK. We've shown that in fact they wouldn't show anything relating to PK.

You can ask me stupid questions and I can speculate til the cows come home, but it's not going to get us anywhere.

I don't think the questions have been stupid. The process does have us somewhere: You've stopped trying to press your claim that PK has been (or even can be) proven by some rng test. I think that is a success.

All I'm saying is that when someone claims that consciousness might not reside in the physical brain you should give them some lee way and take them to task for something else.

No more lee way than if someone comes here claiming that God made mammals and reptiles separate at distinct points in history, or that there was a world wide flood. It's superstition. Consciousness does reside in the physical brain. It has no need of an external source, as it is all adequately explained (although not thorougly known, but this doesn't stop us from knowing that gravity is a physical force so I don't see why conciousness would deserve any special treatment) through what we know of how our brain works.

I haven't insulted you or tried to berate you in any way, hardly (and I feel you have taken some of this a bit personally based on the tone of your response). Most here haven't. They have however presented strong arguments against what you've said on many levels. I wouldn't take this as a personal assault, but as an assualt on the ideas you presented. Remember that many here are scientists, and are used to this type of treatment on ideas. It's necessary, expected, and even desired.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 12:47 PM

You have? "that PK can effect" ? You've shown studies that I think we've proven to be flawed from their inception, making what I would consider elementary mistakes in analyzing historical numbers and their relationships. These are the same mistakes that creationist "scientists" make when fighting their crusade against evolution, the very same mistakes just in a different context.I'm aware that some of the earlier studies were inaccurate flawed or faked. That's why the more recent studies were performed. I just find it hard to believe that an obviously flawed study would even be published. I don't see that you've proven all the studies to be flawed from their inception. How could you when all of the studies weren't addressed?
I'm afraid you're also responsible for the claims you made about what certain number results would prove in relation to PK. We've shown that in fact they wouldn't show anything relating to PK.Looking back I don't see that anyone even properly addressed my thoughts on how a study should be conducted to prove PK.
I don't think the questions have been stupid.The persistant irrelevant questions about Evolution, Randi's Million and Vegas. The process does have us somewhere: You've stopped trying to press your claim that PK has been (or even can be) proven by some rng test. I think that is a success.Not until someone addresses my thoughts on how a study should be conducted.

BTW: How would you try to prove/disprove PK?I haven't insulted you or tried to berate you in any way,I very much appreciate your participation. :thumbs:

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 12:49 PM

If psi power is an advantage, it will be selected for, :rolleyes: Maybe we're already at maximum power.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 01:06 PM

I'm aware that some of the earlier studies were inaccurate flawed or faked. That's why the more recent studies were performed. I just find it hard to believe that an obviously flawed study would even be published.

I would have to look at each individual study and where it was published to address that really, but it's not like the issue is in hot contention. If they're trying to say that there is evidence of PK from a RNG test, then it is obviously flawed from inception. A sequence of numbers provided by an RNG is no more or less likely than any other sequence. Just because an outside force wanted that particular outcome doesn't mean it has suddenly invalidated the normal explanation of "that's how they came out from the RNG".

We don't know that invisible leprachauns that can read minds didn't read the mind of the supposed Psi subject and influence the RNG outcome. That is if we're just going to insert additional "magical" processes in which an outcome that is entirely possible without this new magical additional process.

Looking back I don't see that anyone even properly addressed my thoughts on how a study should be conducted to prove PK.

I probably missed those, I skipped a few postings here and there to be honest.

The persistant irrelevant questions about Evolution, Randi's Million and Vegas.

Ahh... well, I don't believe they were actually hoping for an answer as much as hoping to ignite some additional thought into the implications of what was being said.

BTW: How would you try to prove/disprove PK?

Well, first, I wouldn't bother with anything that merely influenced the operation of another object and could be reduced in the end to "random numbers". Like the flashing of a lamp on a randomly firing generator (pretty much guess on the flip of a coin there when you get down to it). All test like that can't even prove an effect, much less hope to point towards a cause.

I would get a perfectly balanced steel pan with eight holes in it. One on each corner, and one in the center on the edge of each side. I would then ask the participants to push a small metal marble into each one of the holes, the marble being slightly magnetized. There would be equipment underneath capable of tracking the precise, to a rather insane accuracy, location of the marble.

If I asked them to push it to the left side and the marble moved at all towards the left, and then the right to the right etc., that would at least provide to me some evidence that something is going on.

Unfortunately, I think we can both agree that the marble wouldn't move. Some may say "we need to provide it with a little push first so they can just influence it". I.E., slamming the bottom of the pan to get the marble moving and then testing if they can redirect it into a particular hole or not. The problem with this is you've just made it possible to push it all the way back to a random number if you're inclined to reduce the results that way.

That's just one idea.

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 01:31 PM

A sequence of numbers provided by an RNG is no more or less likely than any other sequence.So what about my idea of producing 2 numbers from 0 to 5 and adding them together to produce a bell curve with a random mean of 5? Wouldn't an influenced mean of 6 be interesting? Given a large enough sample.

What about creating a vacuum in a very tall tube. We then release a speck of dust from the center of the top of the tube and ask the subject to make it land to the right or the left of center. I wouldn't use metal because of unaccounted for magnetic influences.

mirage

January 20, 2005, 01:45 PM

I'm aware that some of the earlier studies were inaccurate flawed or faked. That's why the more recent studies were performed. I just find it hard to believe that an obviously flawed study would even be published.They are published in parapsychology journals. These are not considered real science by most scientists, being essentially run by "believers" in any of the mixed bag of unrelated paranormal claims.

The flaws in a study are often extremely difficult to detect and are discovered years later. There is a pattern of this happing with each new paranormal fad. This is like a selection pressure for evolving flawed experiments where the flaw is hard to detect. The easy ones are quickly eliminated. For example the ganzfield experiments which are still currently favoured. These involve putting ping pong ball halves over the subjects eyes with uniform red light through them. They then see if they can pick up an image transmitted by a "sender" in another room. They again relied on statistical analysis to produce an "unexplainable" effect. Sceptics suggested, after physically inspecting the setup that some audio signal (from the video they were using to show images to the senders) could leak into the headphones of the receivers. This was hotly denied, but the signals were found at the limit of human hearing. When this flaw was corrected, the results disappeared.

Who know what flaws exist in this setup? We know virtually nothing about it. It needs people to be actually there. This is all a feature of this pseudoscience looking for microscopic effect sizes that makes systematic biases almost impossible to control. We don't know what security there is for subjects. We don't know how the data is handled. All we know is that these fads have come and gone for >100 yrs and nothing has been shown. We also know that psi researchers don't say much about these experiments any more, that attempts to reproduce the results by others have failed, and that attempts to confirm a quantum effect with laser interference in a large multi centre carefully controlled (with controls pre-agreed with sceptics) study showed no effect.

I have also pointed out several ABSOLUTELY APPALLING errors in statistics from one of the leading light researchers. Why should we trust a single z value from them?

Looking back I don't see that anyone even properly addressed my thoughts on how a study should be conducted to prove PK.I'm not sure this is a valid exercise. There is no anomaly that has been shown that needs investigating. That's how science works. There have been a huge weight of studies that have shown no effect, whenever they have been sufficiently controlled by sceptics. It is disproved.

Purely hypothetically, if we must go hunting spooks, a magnetically levitated needle in a vacuum could be deviated by PK. Such systems can be moved by the momentum of photons. But we need a measurable effect, not an unmeasurable one with a high p value.(done, no effect.)

We could do a simple rate of decay one. (no effect)

We could do a double slit quantum one. (done, no effect)

All these are absolutely plagued by no conceptual framework at all. An anomaly in science is usually measurable with certain characteristics. It allows specific questions to be tested. PK is noise in the signal. It has no rhyme nor reason. This is why it is essentially impossible to produce a definitive study. It's like religion - unfalsifiable. There is nothing there, and nothing is very difficult to study. You are essentially asking us to rule out everything, unconstrained even by the known laws of nature or causation.

Before I was familiar with science, I too was interested in this area and wanted the exiting possibility of supra normal powers to exist. Now I am older, more cynical and a helluva lot wiser. Track record counts for an awful lot.

P.S. However, I wouldn't take the ultra hard line that a million heads coin tosses are equally as likely as any other distribution. Sure, any specific sequence, but not any other distribution. If someone could consistently produce this effect under controlled conditions, there would actually be something to explain. We could then test what factors influenced it, e.g. distance, setup, barriers, physiological factors, em radiation. Force could be measured. There just isn't any such anomaly.

If you take this ultra hard line approach, empirical testing of any unknown mechanism effect would be ruled out, like drug effects, epidemiological studies, or the early days of radioactive materials research. But you always need a half decent effect size.

Ulrich

January 20, 2005, 01:46 PM

I am having trouble seeing the point because it is not the point.

So now you are in the business of telling people what their point is? It was my point, I think I should know what it was. You may not agree with my point, but that does not change the fact that it was the point I was attempting to make. Other people seem to have gotten the point, and the level of discourse in debating the merits of this paper has improved dramatically as a result.

Notice that before people were simply deriding Draygomb and the subject in general. Now specific failings of the study are being discussed, and at the very least this has served to inform me as to how the methodology used in this experimentation was sorely lacking. You may not think much of me, as I am obviously an ignorant sod when compared to your supreme intellect, but at least I am trying to learn something from these discussions.

Now on to the subject of Human Evolution and selection for psi traits...

Since the advent of civilization, we Humans have given Natural Selection a bit of a derailing for our species. The ability to survive until we can spread our genes has dramatically increased, as has our life expectancy, in the last few thousand years. Humans no longer necessarily select their mates based on intelligence, strength, survivability, or even an ability to provide for their young. It seems that this selection is more often one of aesthetic quality, which differs depending on the individual.

We also see people with physical and mental defects procreate (often with others who share the same, or similar, defects), whereas, for nearly any other species these defects would preclude them from living long enough to procreate, or at least, severly hamper their attempts to find a mate.

So, if the advent of the psi gene were a relatively new Human genetic mutation (arriving after, or just before the advent of civilization), it may not necessarily provide enough of an advantage to be selected for reproduction. In fact it could have just the opposite effect. Suppose that weird kid down the street had the psi gene, everyone disliked him because he had these strange abilities that noboby understood. This may have been compounded by the fact that the psi effect was very weak, and he had no control over it, and thus had no way to impress the ladies with his powers. The kid may never have had a chance to procreate, or at least no more of a chance than any other misfit kid on the block.

Of course it could be that the psi gene is also the chronic flatulence gene, and definately lessens the chance for its possesor to procreate in a society that is selecting highly based on the sense of smell (your typical High School).

Just a thought, and no, I do not believe there is a psi gene.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 01:51 PM

So what about my idea of producing 2 numbers from 0 to 5 and adding them together to produce a bell curve with a random mean of 5? Wouldn't an influenced mean of 6 be interesting? Given a large enough sample.

Not really any more interesting than having it come out as a mean of 4 or 2. Two random numbers, looking at sequences as a whole, do not remove the uselessness of the result in deciding whether or not there was any PK/Psi powers involved.

Again, the result that produces a mean of 6 is no less or more likely to come from the random number generators than the one that produces a mean of 5. Would you feel the same if someone "influenced" the mean to be 5? I'd assume you'd dismiss that with a slight sigh and say, "but that's what it's supposed to be if it's purely random over a large enough sample."

I don't mean to harp on it, but a mean of 6 is no less likely than that, and you wouldn't put much stock in it if it were 5 instead of 6.

What about creating a vacuum in a very tall tube. We then release a speck of dust from the center of the top of the tube and ask the subject to make it land to the right or the left of center. I wouldn't use metal because of unaccounted for magnetic influences.

Again you've set something into motion that is already going to produce a result of 0 or 1. (0 for left, 1 for right). A given sequence of 0's and 1's is no more or less likely than any other sequence of 0's or 1's. So, in spite of how, through human intuition, remarkable it may seem if someone managed to want exactly what was produced through randomness, it's still just a coincidence as there are no factors missing from how that sequence came to be.

If someone was not sitting and wanting a certain result, you would still get a certain sequence of 0's and 1's. That means any given sequence of 0's and 1's is just as likely as any other regardless of external influence. This removes any ability to say "aha! we have an effect of someone wanting something"

With these types of tests, you would first have to establish a mechanism for how PK/Psi was responsible, and not just the forces that would be responsible for any other sequence if no one was watching.

A test must be conducted that produces no results without PK/Psi. Therefore every match becomes significant, as the results from pure and known natural causes should be NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL. If the person says, "I wanted a 0" and it comes up 0 when without someone it would have been NULL, now you have something worth investigating. If it comes up 1 when they wanted 0 and it should have been NULL, you still have something worthy of investigation.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 01:55 PM

P.S. However, I wouldn't take the ultra hard line that a million heads coin tosses are equally as likely as any other distribution. Sure, any specific sequence, but not any other distribution. If someone could consistently produce this effect under controlled conditions, there would actually be something to explain. We could then test what factors influenced it, e.g. distance, setup, barriers, physiological factors, em radiation. Force could be measured. There just isn't any such anomaly.

If you take this ultra hard line approach, empirical testing of any unknown mechanism effect would be ruled out, like drug effects, epidemiological studies, or the early days of radioactive materials research. But you always need a half decent effect size.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if that is my view. My meaning is: You can't attribute it back to PK just because someone was wanting those results, as there are other forces that are natural that can fully explain that outcome. Reaching for PK out of any numerical testing scheme where some outcome is gauranteed (matching or not matching the subjects desires) is what I have a problem with.

Of course there would be something to investigate if it managed to come out to 50,000 heads in a row. However, it wouldn't mean that after all investigation, if you found no natural cause, there would be cause to jump to Psi/PK or any other irrational explanation. The explanation of "it just happened" is sufficient as the sequence is not impossible to obtain through pure randomness any more than any other given specific sequence of equal length.

NOTE: The next step in this would be to see if the results repeated (the perfect match) over and over and over. If it is repeated, this "it just happened" event, then it means we haven't looked hard enough for the natural cause. Not because I would automatically dismiss any chance for the supernatural, but because again, the chances of this happening by pure randomness aren't 0 in x, but 1 in x. Unless it is completely impossible, I see no reason to move out of natural causes and into the supernatural.

Psi/PK being a natural phenomena is truly stretching it, as it has been pointed out that the force would have to be greater than forces that are causing no effect that we can easily detect. This leaves very little room (some new force that operates in a way we don't understand or even have a hint into at the moment that has also, remarkably enough, slipped its way into the biological machinery of our bodies) for Psi/PK being natural.

Ellis14

January 20, 2005, 01:56 PM

This thread has turned into a subject for S&S.

mirage

January 20, 2005, 02:08 PM

IOf course there would be something to investigate if it managed to come out to 50,000 heads in a row. However, it wouldn't mean that after all investigation, if you found no natural cause, there would be cause to jump to Psi/PK or any other irrational explanation. The explanation of "it just happened" is sufficient as the sequence is not impossible to obtain through pure randomness any more than any other given specific sequence of equal length.Sure, I think we agree. I was coming from the other direction. However, a very clear large effect under apparent reliable voluntary control and with other features, perhaps distance falloff, would be a defined anomaly very different to searching for patterns in noise. We also have to bear in mind that no experimental result rules out chance with mathematical precision (and often leaving it a very likely possibility in the worst cases!)

Draygomb

January 20, 2005, 02:17 PM

Again, the result that produces a mean of 6 is no less or more likely to come from the random number generators than the one that produces a mean of 5.On average a total of 5 would be produced 6 times out of 36 and a total of 6 would be produced 5 times out of 36.
How do you figure that a mean of 6 is just as likely as a mean of 5? :huh:

Again you've set something into motion that is already going to produce a result of 0 or 1. (0 for left, 1 for right).Actually I was thinking 0 for landing on the dot in the center which is the only place it should land if nothing disturbs it and 1 for landing outside the dot. The control data should be all 0's. Any score of 1 would indicate some disturbance (not necessarily PK). Actually we should just measure how far from center it lands.

Xixax

January 20, 2005, 02:36 PM

On average a total of 5 would be produced 6 times out of 36 and a total of 6 would be produced 5 times out of 36.
How do you figure that a mean of 6 is just as likely as a mean of 5?

Because, again you're looking back at this historically and yet thinking of it in a predictive manner. You're looking at possible outcomes, not actual and equating the two.

If you got a mean of five, five times in a row, could the next mean be five? Would the forces of the universe then conspire against your random number generator to prevent it from producing another sequence with a result of five for its mean?

Of course it could be a mean of five again, and of course the forces of the universe are not keeping record of how well the actual outcomes are matching probable outcomes in order to make things come out to our probabilities based on all possible outcomes.

So, when preparing to study whether or not there is some external factor influencing the result sets, you must try your best to remove this element if at all possible beforehand. In the case of PK/Psi, you can, but introducing a test that has a natural state of NULL.

Actually I was thinking 0 for landing on the dot in the center which is the only place it should land if nothing disturbs it and 1 for landing outside the dot. The control data should be all 0's. Any score of 1 would indicate some disturbance (not necessarily PK). Actually we should just measure how far from center it lands.

Sure, you can assign "center" to 0, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still asking it to give an actual outcome regardless of PK/Psi influences.

Much better to start with something that produces no result at all unless PK/Psi is involved. If they can move a dust speck as it falls, they can make a measurable shift in position to a magnetic ball on a perfectly flat metal surface. :)

Schneibster

January 20, 2005, 06:34 PM

I'd like feedback on these two arguments, both of which attack a naturalistic world-view, most atheists being naturalists 'n all... I shall post it in the hope of receiving well informed criticisms:Well, will well-formed criticisms do? ;)

P1) The universe arose by chance, that is to say, it was not formed with any pupose, end or intention.

P2) Therefore, we and our thinking processes arose by chance.I see no problem so far...

P3) One of the functions we like to attribute to our thinking processes is the production of true beliefs. Right here, we have multiple problems.
First, what does "like to attribute" mean? If this is propositional logic, then you need to avoid statements with fuzziness to them. You need to modify this statement to something that avoids this kind of fuzziness.
Second, prove that it is possible for any belief to be true.

P4) Since, however, (if the naturalist is correct) our thinking processes were formed with no intention or purpose in mind, to say that one of the purposes or intentions of our cognitive equipement is the production of true beliefs is to make an assertion without any justification.No problem here, either. :D You will note that if I just eliminate P3...

Con: Therefore naturalism, in conjunction with the belief that a function of our minds is to produce true beliefs is to hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.Correct; however, it is the assertion that production of true beliefs is a function of our minds that is the problem, not naturalism.

...
The latter is an argument from value:

P1) According to the naturalist, only that which is inside the universe actually exists.

P2) Nothing inside the universe has intrinsic value - upon the examination of any object, you will not find any which necessarily holds any value. No problem so far...

P3) Everyone (and therefore naturalists), however, act as if things had value - preferring some things over others, by simply doing anything...Right here we have problems.
First, you have changed from value of "things" to value of "actions."
Second, you assert that by choosing one course of action over another, we assign values to these courses of action. However, you do not show that this value is intrinsic; a relative value would be sufficient for us to make these choices.

Con: Naturalism, therefore, in conjunction with a world view (or any belief) which expresses a preference for one thing over another, which makes value judgements, is to, again, hold an unjustifiable viewpoint.Denied: it is not provably necessary that I assign an intrinsic value to any thing or situation to assign relative values that allow value judgements among alternatives.

I am prepared to support my assertions with examples if necessary.

Sven

January 21, 2005, 03:40 AM

Yes, I would - note in my post wherein I made two crushingly critical comments about the paper - both of which you confirmed applied to the paper! Gosh, how did I know in advance that the paper would make those errors? Perhaps I am psychic... or just have a lot of experience.
You completely sidestepped my point. First, please cite the theories which physicts presented in the papers in which they suggested the ether does not exists - I mean those folks apart from Einstein.
Second, having a lot of experience does not mean that there's not some article out there presenting a theory. Hey, it took me about 10 minutes reading the article (of course a lot longer for reviewing it) - this much time should be feasible, even for arch-skeptics like you.

I still haven't, and I won't. I will gladly discuss what you reference here, but I am not going to waste my time reading a stupid paper. I am here to converse, not do homework.
Here's you complete closed-mindedness again. But after I reviewed part of the paper: Did you anywhere make suggestions how this evidence can be explained in non-psi terms?
Edited to add: Oh, I see that mirage did you this. :thumbs: (and he read the paper :p )[/edit]

The what does the paper even mean? What is it purportedly evidence for?
It means that there's something going on which needs explaining. Just as the observation of the deviations of the orbit of mercury meant that there's something going on which needs explaining. The folks who published that observation also could not explain it (I don't know if they presented a hypotheses), but physicists did not simply wave it away and said: "I am not going to waste my time reading a stupid paper".

Meanwhile, I did read the part of the denier of the Holocaust in the debate some months ago here at IIDB.
I'm glad somebody did.
That's all you have to answer after I've demolished your non-argument?
And please notice that I, being German myself and disgusted beyond words what my ancestors did, would be one of the lasts people on Earth who would deny that the Holocaust happened.

No they can't. When physics says "a very weak force," they mean something a few dozen orders of magnitude smaller than what you mean when you use the term.
This fits perfectly with my interpretation of "weak force". Perhaps (wild speculation assumed there's indeed some evidence which needs to be explained) the force is very weak, but in special circumstances it's possible to concentrate large amounts of the carriers of this force (equivalent to photons for electromagnetic forces etc.) so that its influence becomes noticeable. Only the circumstances are that difficult to achieve that only low percentages of success are possible. But it's perfectly in line with accepted physics.

It's far from clear that a theory explaining the evidence would overturn all other accepted theories.
I do not have time to explain this fully, so I will just say this: the subject's physical body exerts a gravitational influence on the lamp. That influence is known to be inadequate to affect the operation of a lamp, circut, or even a single electron. For the subject to exert a force on the lamp, he must exceed gravity. Ergo, stronger than gravity.
So what? If very special circumstances were indeed necessary to get a large enough "psi charge" for a noticeable effect, this would mean nothing like the overturning of accepted physics.

Sven

January 21, 2005, 04:17 AM

I'm aware that some of the earlier studies were inaccurate flawed or faked. That's why the more recent studies were performed. I just find it hard to believe that an obviously flawed study would even be published.
Let me tell you something from someone actually working in science:
This, unfortunately, happens far too often. In my about 5 years of work in research, I've come across at least five totally crappy papers - but which were nevertheless published in very well-known journals with very good reputation. And that's only in the very narrow field of science I work in.

Looking back I don't see that anyone even properly addressed my thoughts on how a study should be conducted to prove PK.
That's IMHO a very interesting question. I'd suggest to ask Randi. :p

Sven

January 21, 2005, 04:53 AM

Thanks, mirage, for this very enlightening post! But I have still questions/comments...

Right, It was discussing several studies, I was wrong, I apologise. These findings have certainly not been repeated however.
:huh: There were serveral studies, so the results were repeated. What exactly are you asking for?
Or - what's possible, since I didn't look at them - did the other studies only similar experiments, not the same? Then I would understand your point.

The null hypothesis is never given weight. Any factor that could quite reasonably be explained by there being no paranormal power, is explained by ad hoc hypotheses [...]
That's a very important point, I think!

Failure of convergence of effects.. Different results are not related in any discernible way. The effects are always tied to the precise experimental set up.
Is this the case here, too?

This is why simple repetition of the same setup (usually by the same small group of credulous pseudo scientists) does not count as reproducible results.
So, what does count? :confused:
Would a reproduction of the result done by skeptics using the same setup count?

Even given this, these random quantum results have not been independently reproduced by sceptics.
Because they didn't try, or did they try and failed? If the latter, do you have references?

A telling point is that when the same "hypothesis", vague as it is, is tested by a different method, the hypothesis is not confirmed.
Is this the case here, too? They cited different studied, I'm not sure if those confirmed the hypotheses of the article or not.

Of relevance here is the experiment to test quantum influence of psi subjects, that used instead of the dice machine, light interference. There was no effect.
Did you provide a reference for this? If yes, I unfortunately missed it.

A success rate of 70% on coin flips with p value 0.001 is something to explain. A success rate of 50.02% (a more recent figure from accumulated quantum random experiments) is nothing to explain even with p<0.000000000001. They mistake statistical significance with significance. If they want to show an effect, they had better produce a significant effect, not a statistically significant non-effect.
I always had problems with statistics, so I unfortunately have to admit that I can not follow. Could you explain this in more simply terms, perhaps? Starting with a hint what the heck "p" is? :o (hmm, from the following, it simply appears to be the probability for a certain event)

Furthermore, there is no pattern to the anomalies, even in individual experiments.
Is this the case here, too?

The "researchers" are incompetent. Radin, who is prominent, and reports the largest statistic anomalies is A FUCKWIT OR DISHONEST in my book.
Funny that I pointed out this as well in my post and Draygomb simply skipped over it. :)

Furthermore (yes, it is worse still) they ignore the Bayes factor (similar likelihood ratio, odds ratio, and increasingly used in medical trials for example. the p and z values greatly underestimate the null hypothesis. This is OK for research where a positive result is quite likely because of supporting theory and evidence. For unknown small likelihoods, the p value is shite and has little statistical quantitative basis for providing support to a hypothesis). This is the extent your prior odds of a hypothesis should be adjusted by your results. A huge analysis of millions of runs that yields a p value of say, 0.01 (a 1:100 likelihood of a chance result) actually supports the null hypothesis! This is (sort of) because a trial of such statistical power not finding a cast iron effect is much less likely than a null hypothesis producing a 1 in a hundred result.
This I also could not follow.

Added to this extreme scepticism of the statistics produced by these researchers is the complete lack of details of the analysis. We don't know how many total "runs" were made and the fraction present in the analysis.
IIRC, in the article the total number of runs was given? Or do you think they made more, but just included the ones which fit in the article (selection bias)?

Also, Schmidt does not actually test his hypothesis, such as it is. If he thinks that the observer has some special effect on the outcome of past events, then he should have a control where another observer looks at the results unbeknownst to the psychic before the psychic does his stuff, and analyse both sets of data. [Edit - sorry Schmidt, you do this with your magnetic tapes. I'm not happy with the general controls though. ]Perhaps he doesn't because his "theory" is actually not at all supported by QM?
As far as I understood it, the outside observer looked at the results after the subject did his experiment, not before. When they looked before, the subject also knew about the result before - something which should obviously avoided.

So, to summarise, the whole area of "research" is an incompetent crock of shit, so my decision to rubbish the conclusion that "observers affect random events" based only on the facts that the paper was from parapsychology, 18 yrs old
Sorry to ask again (I don't know if Draygomb's (Ulrich's?) question has already been answered): What's the relevance of the age of the study?

I'm not closed minded. I'm just informed about this sort of thing.
Since you actually read the article, I agree.