View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Oct 2009, 00:17

ProfessorX wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:
Are you talking about my response or Nostradamus'?


I was talking about Nostradamus. My bad for not being clear. And I think it's a good thing to NOT make assumptions about a study's reliability without getting more information about it. My point about the second-line of defense is any person, skeptic or believer, who doesn't like the conclusions drawn from a study, will selectively challenge the reliability of the study, yet will often assume the reliability of any study that supports his or her prevailing belief system.
-
-
-


No worries. I agree. Both skeptics and believers seem to employ such a defense mechanism, cognitive dissonance most likely being the cause. Here's an interesting fact about myself not many know: I, too, was one an "uber-hyperskeptic." I thought that anyone who showed support for anything paranormal was deluding himself. It's only after having critically and objectively reviewed the various evidence that I came to the realization that this stuff does indeed have empirical support. Therefore, I could no longer let my cognitive dissonance keep into place my convictions, worldview, preconceptions.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA






Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Oct 2009, 00:49

I believe I've found the source of this "34%" reference: Utts, Jessica, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING, 1995. It's a meta-analysis, so I'll have to search the underlying experiments' protocols in order to ascertain whether or not they employed multiple raters.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Oct 2009, 01:17

Here's some information regarding judging/rating per the preceding paper:

Utts 1995 wrote:The SAIC remote viewing experiments and all but the early ones at SRI used a statistical
evaluation method known as rank-order judging. After the completion of a remote viewing,
a judge who is blind to the true target (called a blind judge) is shown the response and five
potential targets, one of which is the correct answer and the other four of which are "decoys."
Before the experiment is conducted each of those five choices must have had an equal chance
of being selected as the actual target. The judge is asked to assign a rank to each of the
possible targets, where a rank of one means it matches the response most closely, and a rank
of five means it matches the least.

The rank of the correct target is the numerical score for that remote viewing. By chance alone
the actual target would receive each of the five ranks with equal likelihood, since despite what
the response said the target matching it best would have the same chance of selection as the
one matching it second best and so on. The average rank by chance would be three.
Evidence for anomalous cognition occurs when the average rank over a series of trials is
significantly lower than three. (Notice that a rank of one is the best possible score for each
viewing.)

This scoring method is conservative in the sense that it gives no extra credit for an excellent
match. A response that describes the target almost perfectly will achieve the same rank of one
as a response that contains only enough information to pick the target as the best choice out of
the five possible choices. One advantage of this method is that it is still valid even if the
viewer knows the set of possible targets. The probability of a first place match by chance
would still be only one in five. This is important because the later SRI and many of the SAIC
experiments used the same large set of National Geographic photographs as targets.
Therefore, the experienced viewers would eventually become familiar with the range of
possibilities since they were usually shown the answer at the end of each remote viewing
session.

For technical reasons explained in Appendix 1, the effect size for a series of remote viewings
using rank-order judging with five choices is (3.0 - average rank)/Ö2. Therefore, small,
medium and large effect sizes (0.2, 0.5 and 0.8) correspond to average ranks of 2.72, 2.29
and 1.87, respectively. Notice that the largest effect size possible using this method is 1.4,
which would result if every remote viewing achieved a first place ranking.


Personally, if I would have designed the protocols involved, I would have employed more than one judge. However, the design seems as unbiased and blinded as it can be without resorting to having to use multiple judges. I would like to learn more about the details about the judges employed, however. I think it's important to utilize an impartial judge, especially if you're to use just one.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Oct 2009, 10:45

So we begin with an out of context statement about one or more studies and we end up with circling the wagons.

The 3 lines of defense are simply unimportant. The issue is being able to defend a position. Those who have not been to a scientific meeting have no idea what it means to defend a claim. Are you pretending that the tough questions are reserved for the psi believers? Then you would be mistaken.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Oct 2009, 10:50

This is a funny joke. I love it!

However, the design seems as unbiased and blinded as it can be without resorting to having to use multiple judges.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Oct 2009, 11:34

Nostradamus wrote:This is a funny joke. I love it!

However, the design seems as unbiased and blinded as it can be without resorting to having to use multiple judges.


Don't you just love them emotions? Now If only I could experience such bliss without resorting to having to exhibit ignorance... :lol:
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ciscop » 02 Oct 2009, 14:51

quantumparanormal wrote:
Nostradamus wrote:This is a funny joke. I love it!

However, the design seems as unbiased and blinded as it can be without resorting to having to use multiple judges.


Don't you just love them emotions? Now If only I could experience such bliss without resorting to having to exhibit ignorance... :lol:


:lol:
i like it that your resource is always to insult the intelligence of the skeptics
while you go around knocking doors spreading the gospel of radin.. the irony
..
back to the topic
this is the closest to ¨remote viewing¨ we get right now.. BATMAN RULES


and.. at the end
there´s an ¨actual¨ remote viewing test done to all of UK
where 30% of england chose a particular figure
(it was tv.. and it is a magic show, so lets remain skeptic about it)
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby ProfessorX » 02 Oct 2009, 15:34

Nostradamus wrote:Those who have not been to a scientific meeting have no idea what it means to defend a claim. Are you pretending that the tough questions are reserved for the psi believers? Then you would be mistaken.


Hey, you've actually provided a good example of a "strawman or straw-woman" argument. And you then knocked it down pretty good. ;)
ProfessorX
 
Posts: 24
Joined: 13 Sep 2009, 09:36

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby formosan » 02 Oct 2009, 18:05

quantumparanormal wrote:I believe I've found the source of this "34%" reference: Utts, Jessica, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING, 1995. It's a meta-analysis, so I'll have to search the underlying experiments' protocols in order to ascertain whether or not they employed multiple raters.



I've read the paper, but I don't see 34% quoted as a generally applicable number in there. I did a search on the numeral "34" and while it's in there a few times, it seems to be in reference to specific things, not as an overall conclusion.
formosan
 
Posts: 29
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 15:28

Re: Skeptic agrees that Remote Viewing is Proven

Postby quantumparanormal » 02 Oct 2009, 21:51

formosan wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote:I believe I've found the source of this "34%" reference: Utts, Jessica, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING, 1995. It's a meta-analysis, so I'll have to search the underlying experiments' protocols in order to ascertain whether or not they employed multiple raters.



I've read the paper, but I don't see 34% quoted as a generally applicable number in there. I did a search on the numeral "34" and while it's in there a few times, it seems to be in reference to specific things, not as an overall conclusion.


I agree, which is why I said "I believe I've found the source of this "34%" reference." It's was the only paper I could in which a reference to ".34" is mentioned. Perhaps that's what she's referring to in the news article? It's difficult to tell. I'll email her. Hopefully she provides an answer to clear it up.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests