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 craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 08:24

Ninjapuppy,
The ping pong balls diffuse the light and help put the test subject in a relaxed state so that they receive better. Wikipedia is a terrible source for anything psychic. It's infested with utterly hardcore psi deniers that would almost make Randi blush. (almost) A great book available from most libraries is "The Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin. It's a really straightforward explanation of the science.

And Arouet,
I got my dander up (you might have noticed) and backed away for awhile. I'm a highly emotional person and I know better than to continue when I get that way.

Anyway, I've made my point. I would say that your claim of possible researcher bias is not as strong as you think it is. You haven't actually said so, but I think it's apparent that you can't point to any actual bias. The Ioannidis study which you refer to is a very tenuous thread to be hanging on. The ganzfeld is probably the most scrutinized study in the history of science.

[snark on] I am glad to be doing my bit to aid you in your quest for better skepticism by pointing out your flaws. [snark off] :roll:
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, 09:48

I realized that I needed to explain in some detail why the The Ioannidis study doesn't apply here. First of all, a bit of history about the ganzfeld. Honorton and Hyman went through this many years ago with Hyman absolutely insisting on removing any possibility of researcher bias from the study. Photos might have fingerprints, tapes might have been run too many times. There might be non verbal clues from assistants and on and on. All of these possible problems were removed when computers became available and the test became automated. There is very little handling and very few people involved. There is a very strict protocol for ganzfeld studies and it is very easy to grade them on their quality. Of particular interest here is that none of these modification made any difference to the study outcomes. The results stayed about the same. That means that the earlier, less strictly controlled studies were just as valid as later ones because none of the supposed problems were valid. Even in its rough form, researcher bias was not showing up in the ganzfeld.

Hyman was forced to admit that something was going on and called for more studies to be sure. That has happened.

Now in the The Ioannidis study the authors were looking at medical studies, which are complicated by the tenacious placebo effect. So they essentially have two studies to deal with: The control and the actual study. More people equals more things that can go wrong. A control is not straightforward because a poorly done procedure can invalidate the placebo effect. It has to be believable to the patient. Then you have the problem of evaluating the outcome of the study, which is not always straightforward and might be open to interpretation. So small effects are very likely to be meaningless. These studies are also obscure for the most part and as was pointed out in the Loannidis study, medical studies are subject to influence through money. (This is why I don't try to evaluate medical studies.)

These studies also do not have an army of skeptics waiting in the wings to criticize any failures.

So when it comes to comparing the ganzfeld to these other studies, this is very much comparing apples and oranges.
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, 12:29

craig weiler wrote:I got my dander up (you might have noticed) and backed away for awhile. I'm a highly emotional person and I know better than to continue when I get that way.


Fair enough. Guess I would say that it's a discussion forum, we're all here out of interest and you really shouldn't let what gets said here bother you too much!

The ganzfeld is probably the most scrutinized study in the history of science.


Don't want to get your dander up again, but dude, you can't possibly be serious here? How many people even KNOW about the ganzfeld studies? There are probably more people scrutinizing the CERN study of last week than the entirety of people who have ever looked at any ganzfeld study! (guesstimate, obv!)

[snark on] I am glad to be doing my bit to aid you in your quest for better skepticism by pointing out your flaws. [snark off] :roll:


I don't begrudge you aiding my quest. But likewise, you've got to look at bit at yours!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 02 Oct 2011, 12:34

craig weiler wrote:I realized that I needed to explain in some detail why the The Ioannidis study doesn't apply here. First of all, a bit of history about the ganzfeld. Honorton and Hyman went through this many years ago with Hyman absolutely insisting on removing any possibility of researcher bias from the study.


The point is that you can't eliminate "any possibility" of researcher bias from studies. Or rather- it is impossible to know if you have done so (you need to identify it first). That is why we assume there is some bias there and are very wary of small effect sizes.

Photos might have fingerprints, tapes might have been run too many times. There might be non verbal clues from assistants and on and on. All of these possible problems were removed when computers became available and the test became automated. There is very little handling and very few people involved. There is a very strict protocol for ganzfeld studies and it is very easy to grade them on their quality. Of particular interest here is that none of these modification made any difference to the study outcomes. The results stayed about the same. That means that the earlier, less strictly controlled studies were just as valid as later ones because none of the supposed problems were valid. Even in its rough form, researcher bias was not showing up in the ganzfeld.


Guess I'll comment more on this as I go through my review (which will proceed slowly- basically when I feel like doing it! :)

Now in the The Ioannidis study the authors were looking at medical studies, which are complicated by the tenacious placebo effect. So they essentially have two studies to deal with: The control and the actual study. More people equals more things that can go wrong. A control is not straightforward because a poorly done procedure can invalidate the placebo effect. It has to be believable to the patient. Then you have the problem of evaluating the outcome of the study, which is not always straightforward and might be open to interpretation. So small effects are very likely to be meaningless. These studies are also obscure for the most part and as was pointed out in the Loannidis study, medical studies are subject to influence through money. (This is why I don't try to evaluate medical studies.)

These studies also do not have an army of skeptics waiting in the wings to criticize any failures.

So when it comes to comparing the ganzfeld to these other studies, this is very much comparing apples and oranges.


Again: while Ioannidis focussed on med studies the idea is that this applies to all sciences. But again, we'll go into more detail when I get back to reviewing the ganzfeld stuff. I don't know what my conclusions are going to be. I read a bunch of it awhile back but its not fresh. I'd like the discussion to proceed organically, and we'll see what comes out of it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby Arouet » 02 Oct 2011, 12:43

craig weiler wrote:I realized that I needed to explain in some detail why the The Ioannidis study doesn't apply here. First of all, a bit of history about the ganzfeld. Honorton and Hyman went through this many years ago with Hyman absolutely insisting on removing any possibility of researcher bias from the study.


The point is that you can't eliminate "any possibility" of researcher bias from studies. Or rather- it is impossible to know if you have done so (you need to identify it first). That is why we assume there is some bias there and are very wary of small effect sizes.

Photos might have fingerprints, tapes might have been run too many times. There might be non verbal clues from assistants and on and on. All of these possible problems were removed when computers became available and the test became automated. There is very little handling and very few people involved. There is a very strict protocol for ganzfeld studies and it is very easy to grade them on their quality. Of particular interest here is that none of these modification made any difference to the study outcomes. The results stayed about the same. That means that the earlier, less strictly controlled studies were just as valid as later ones because none of the supposed problems were valid. Even in its rough form, researcher bias was not showing up in the ganzfeld.


Guess I'll comment more on this as I go through my review (which will proceed slowly- basically when I feel like doing it! :)

Now in the The Ioannidis study the authors were looking at medical studies, which are complicated by the tenacious placebo effect. So they essentially have two studies to deal with: The control and the actual study. More people equals more things that can go wrong. A control is not straightforward because a poorly done procedure can invalidate the placebo effect. It has to be believable to the patient. Then you have the problem of evaluating the outcome of the study, which is not always straightforward and might be open to interpretation. So small effects are very likely to be meaningless. These studies are also obscure for the most part and as was pointed out in the Loannidis study, medical studies are subject to influence through money. (This is why I don't try to evaluate medical studies.)

These studies also do not have an army of skeptics waiting in the wings to criticize any failures.

So when it comes to comparing the ganzfeld to these other studies, this is very much comparing apples and oranges.


Again: while Ioannidis focussed on med studies the idea is that this applies to all sciences. But again, we'll go into more detail when I get back to reviewing the ganzfeld stuff. I don't know what my conclusions are going to be. I read a bunch of it awhile back but its not fresh. I'd like the discussion to proceed organically, and we'll see what comes out of it!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 02 Oct 2011, 23:38

Don't want to get your dander up again, but dude, you can't possibly be serious here? How many people even KNOW about the ganzfeld studies? There are probably more people scrutinizing the CERN study of last week than the entirety of people who have ever looked at any ganzfeld study! (guesstimate, obv!)


Uh, quite a few people actually. It's been going on since the 70's.
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 » 03 Oct 2011, 01:28

Quite a few relative to other areas of study? The parapsychological community has always been small. Do you really think there has been anywhere near as much scrutiny over ganzfeld as there has been over, say, relativity? Or evolution? Or pretty well any other major discovery? Parapsychology is largely unknown. Not completely unknown - but largely unknown to the general mainstream and scientific population. To suggest that it is one of the most scrutinized areas in science seems to me to be a bit of wishful thinking.

it's not a knock against parapsychology - I'd like to see more people interested too.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 03 Oct 2011, 01:44

I didn't say area of science, I said study. Please don't mis-quote me as it leads to straw man arguments where you compare this to discussions of evolution. And the ganzfeld has been picked over by a small army of skeptics for over 30 years, so yes, it's gotten a lot of attention. It might be an obscure field, but it gets outsized attention from skeptics.

And no one has been able to find this mythical researcher bias that is supposedly responsible for the amazingly consistent results. Would you please at least acknowledge that there is no proof of researcher bias? I am getting the impression that you will not concede this obvious fact.
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 » 04 Oct 2011, 06:47

craig weiler wrote:I didn't say area of science, I said study. Please don't mis-quote me as it leads to straw man arguments where you compare this to discussions of evolution.


I understood what you meant. I think you get my point. We can drop it, I'll assume you were just using some hyperbole there.

And the ganzfeld has been picked over by a small army of skeptics for over 30 years, so yes, it's gotten a lot of attention. It might be an obscure field, but it gets outsized attention from skeptics.


Not that many, though, right? Some big ones like Hyman. But I'm not sure how much scrutiny they get. Compare it to some of the major studies today that get picked up by the bloggosphere these days and get investigated in gargatuan detail by a large chunk of the scientific community. It's a new day. Anyhow, this is a distraction that is best dropped.

And no one has been able to find this mythical researcher bias that is supposedly responsible for the amazingly consistent results. Would you please at least acknowledge that there is no proof of researcher bias? I am getting the impression that you will not concede this obvious fact.


We'll get into the specifics of ganzfeld in that thread (when I get around to it, please be patient with me, got a lot going on right now so in depth study may have to wait!). But let's deal generally (whcih was how the study was done). Ioannidis' point is that it will not always be obvious for how these biases affect the experiment. The normal peer review and critique of the studies handle those obvious errors. The biases will come in in less obvious ways that don't necessarily show up. Again: this is why the warning signs lead us to say that we can't feel confident in the results, that they are more likely to be unreliable. Not that the therefore ARE unreliable.

Maybe I'm not explaining this well...
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 04 Oct 2011, 08:31

What warning signs? And I told you, the Loannidis study was referring to far more obscure and way more complicated medical studies. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. YOU can't feel confident in the results. Skeptics can't feel confident in the results. There is no WE!
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 » 04 Oct 2011, 08:49

Ummm, you obviously weren't included in the "us". Actually, I was using it more like "one". It was meant to be generic. In any event, it's fine that you feel confident in the results. I don't. Maybe one day I will, but I'm not there yet.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Human Flying

Postby craig weiler » 04 Oct 2011, 09:54

Okey Dokey.
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 cecil1 » 24 Apr 2012, 04:32

Indigo Child wrote:The reality of psychic/Yogic
powers are very logical if one logically understands the nature of reality and formulates a correct
ontological map of it.


I disagree, in metaphsyics one learns the nature of reality is constant like a line on a map, our perceptions are the wavering line that occasionally or frequently (depending on the level of consciousness within the individual) dips or wavers off that constant path, it is when we realign our perceptions to the constant reality that inner peace or the ability to love is found, the work is for us to do, this understanding does not logically align with yogic magic or being able to change phsyical material or the "forces" acting upon them simply by thinking it to be so, no matter the level of "concentration."

No matter how hard one tries the truth does not operate on demand, instead for every step taken towards the truth, the truth takes a step towards you, doesn't that seem more logical, based in responsibility and geared towards free will?

So instead of being a loving individual the yogi seeks to change their surroundings, which is the anti-thesis of spirituality.
Spirituality encompasses true self-change through extreme internal hard work, understanding, realization of truth, intense self-honesty and sincerity.
This idea Indigo Child promotes is illogical when one understands the spiritual nature of reality.

There are in fact, foundational charities based upon these spiritual principles I mention, ever hear of Vernon Howard or Guy Finley? (Some others as well but there's 2 for a start)
Google those names and see what comes up. =)

I could lie and say that everything is easy and you can simply concentrate with your mind to change physical reality to your opinion, but we all know that isn't true (deep down), next time you believe you can change the phsyical reality just remember how many tears prompted that line of thought. It is so much easier to wishful think instead of getting down to the real problem of the negative emotions isn't it?

I would be more inclined to support the study of wether chi/energy exists and if that is affecting physical reality rather than the concentrated wishful thinking method which just so happens to be called attachment of self-absorbed thought by certain circles, a spiritual no-no in the realm of love truth and wisdom .

I propose that logically if there is some method of bypassing "physics" it would be with chi energy if it exists, and then if it exists, how one taps into this power, remembering of course that chi energy is NOT spirituality.

Spirituality deals with self-change, not outer-change.

Sorry for drudging up such an old topic. Thanks for allowing this comment.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Re: Human Flying

Postby ProfWag » 24 Apr 2012, 05:10

Assuming, I'm sure, that one actually wants to change?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Human Flying

Postby cecil1 » 24 Apr 2012, 05:17

I would say that for an assumption, you are extremely accurate.
cecil1
 
Posts: 141
Joined: 13 Apr 2012, 02:31

Previous

Return to Spirituality / Spiritual Teachings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest

cron