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

Human Flying

Discuss Spirituality, Share Spiritual Teachings and Lessons.

Re: Human Flying

Postby ProfWag » 01 Oct 2011, 03:38

craig weiler wrote:No. You've missed the point entirely; the skeptical study was POORLY DONE and the conclusions were faulty. It is really all just another form of scientific denial.

Ironically that is EXACTLY what I believe about any of the so-called positive paranormal studies. Now, here's where you are biased. MIT's study should NOT be referred to as a "skeptical study." It was an independent study done by a reputable university to determine an outcome either way. Just because it's conclusion doesn't support your idea doesn't mean it was poorly done.
So, who should I believe? MIT's study or Princeton which has since shut it's doors? I guess, if you need to make some money as a psychic, you would support Princeton and others with similar results. However, if you think there are a lot of crooks, ala Sylvia, who work as a psychic, then one would support MIT's study and other's with similar results. Just my observation and opinion.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 03:51

It is a skeptical study because the researchers revealed their intentions by declaring psi to be non existent. That is an absurd overstatement.

I have already explained WHY the study was poorly done. That is the most important feature of this discussion. I have explained what was wrong with the study and why it could not have achieved positive results. If you are educated in psi experiments, you should be able to understand my reasoning and unless I am mistaken as to how the experiment was performed, I am correct in my conclusions. There is no reason to take this study seriously.

If you put so much stock in independent studies by universities, I have a boatload of positive studies to share with you. Or is everyone who conducts a psi study and achieves positive results automatically biased in your opinion?
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 03:57

craig weiler wrote:U. of Edinburgh, Scotland* Kathy Dalton 1997

128 trials

47% hit rate

* Artistically gifted sample

This closely matched the results of a study with Julliard Students. Schitz and Honorton 1992 which yielded 50% and another by Morris, Cunningham, McAlpine and Taylor, 1993, which had a 41% hit rate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F4-p5T ... 25&f=false


Tx, I'll try and dig it up.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 04:09

Ah, I see, Dalton was one of the one's Ersby excluded. I stopped going through it to see what was resolved (they were discussing whether it should or not.) I'll have to continue going over that thread to see what they concluded there. I think this weekend I'll continue my review, post some interesting stuff and if anyone wants to join in, they can.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 09:37

Well, Ok. We still have the matter of a lack of any sort of proof for researcher bias in ganzfeld studies. Just accusations by skeptics that they must somehow exist. Even 7% is a large enough number for bias to be visible in the procedure if it existed.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 12:08

It's not about accusations of skeptics about bias. We should assume bias. Have you read the Ioannidis study? I'll link it for you if you haven't. (it doesn't deal with psi, but its generally understood to apply to scientists in general)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 12:34

I don't believe we should automatically assume bias on an automated double blind study that's been totally picked over. You have to prove your point just like everyone else.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 01 Oct 2011, 19:15

What the Ioannidis study focuses on is how confident can we be that results of a study - or a collection of studies - are correct. What he notes, for example is that when there is no effect, we would often still expect the study to show a small effect. It is almost impossible to review a study and completely identify any possible small bias or small error just from reading the report: not everything shows up in a report.

There is a subtle difference here. I am not saying that I know these studies are wrong. What my problem is is having confidence that they are RIGHT! Do you see the difference? That's the problem with small effect sizes in small fields. It is hard to be confident in the results.

Remember: most studies - even double blind ones - turn out to be wrong. These are peer reviewed studies we're talking about! Bias is everywhere in all of us. It serves little to presume that parapsychologists are the only scientists in the world to somehow be bias free. There is no reason to believe that and some reason to believe the opposite. Again: that's not a slight against parapsychologists - it's in everyone.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby ProfWag » 01 Oct 2011, 19:56

craig weiler wrote:Well, Ok. We still have the matter of a lack of any sort of proof for researcher bias in ganzfeld studies. Just accusations by skeptics that they must somehow exist. Even 7% is a large enough number for bias to be visible in the procedure if it existed.

Craig W, what are your thoughts on Louie Savva?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 01 Oct 2011, 22:57

I read just a little bit of it. He seems a bit like Susan Blackmore: just not cut out for it. I don't know his whole story and Blackmore's didn't come out until years later. In her case, her studies were poorly done and even so, demonstrated the psi effect that she claimed was missing. Her supposed 10 years in the field was actually 2. This gentleman may or may not have the same issues, I don't know. He is clearly seeing things from a certain perspective and can't get past it. Some people have trouble grasping the essence of the paranormal and he sounds like one of them. I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Parapsychology is a tough field.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 01:53

Arouet,
The Ioannidis study doesn't even come close to applying to the Ganzfeld.

In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.


No way does this describe the tightly controlled, totally examined ganzfeld. So, I reiterate my previous point: You have to prove your claim of researcher bias.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 02 Oct 2011, 02:44

That list applies to a broad number of studies, it's not meant to narrow a small number of studies that meets all those criteria. The small effect size alone is cause for concern. Small number of studies. Read the report as a whole, consider the message that is being presented.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 03:19

Since when is the ganzfeld a small number of studies? Prove your claim.
A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for.
User avatar
craig weiler
 
Posts: 386
Joined: 03 Sep 2011, 12:08
Location: San Francisco Peninsula

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 02 Oct 2011, 04:22

Craig, I wanted to talk about ganzfeld - you didn't. Do you want to go back to discussing it?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby NinjaPuppy » 02 Oct 2011, 06:56

Arouet wrote:Craig, I wanted to talk about ganzfeld - you didn't. Do you want to go back to discussing it?

I'd like to know more about it. I read a bit about the ganzfeld experiment on Wikipedia but I'll be darned if I can understand the significance of the ping pong balls. Basically, even if the rest of the procedure worked like a charm, the person would still look like a major dork with ping pong balls on their eyes.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

PreviousNext

Return to Spirituality / Spiritual Teachings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest