Human Flying

[ProfWag]

[craig weiler]

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?

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

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.

[craig weiler]

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.

[Arouet]

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)

[craig weiler]

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.

[Arouet]

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.

[ProfWag]

[craig weiler]

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.

[craig weiler]

[Arouet]

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.

[craig weiler]

Since when is the ganzfeld a small number of studies? Prove your claim.

[Arouet]

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

[NinjaPuppy]