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

"Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 29 Mar 2010, 07:52

First off do you understand the term Meta-analysis ?


Ummm, yeah. I am a parapsychologist after all, and I've read more journal articles on not only parapsychology, but regular psychology, chemistry, medicine, and others, than most people ever will in their lives. There is nothing wrong with the general concept of meta-analysis to summarize data over a wide range of experiments. Read a journal on meta-analysis, and you would know that.

Secondly do you understand what the greatest problem that can occur when using collective results from different experiments ?


Yes, it's called Selective Reporting, and skeptics within the parapsychology community have already agreed it is not the cause of the effect seen. Yawn.

Thirdly these experiments seem to be outdated. If there were results clearly above chance then more research would have been conducted.


There are between 50 and 100 active research parapsychologists in the field. Most of the funding comes from private donors. The NSF thinks parapsych is a pseudoscience, and won't send any money our way. I think there are 50 active research chemists in my building alone, and they probably move $10-30 million a year in grants funding. We're conducting what research we can. But if you're willing to donate to our cause, we'd be very happy to accept your contribution :)

Also, since most of the Ganzfeld research is pertinent and similar in nature, to omit Ganzfeld data just because "it's outdated" would be to commit Selective Reporting. ;)

However, there are certainly talks about conducting one gigantic study under the best possible conditions, it's just that resources are limited, and a lot of people can't agree yet what would be the best experimental procedure to use. Also, many parapsychologists feel psi is proven enough to warrant further investigation, so they spend their time doing more interesting things, rather than the same old boring experiments, in order to try to find out WHY and HOW psi works, rather than if it does or not. I suggest read more journal articles.

A bad example because chemists know that it's a real reaction and are able to take safe guards against it not happening and can even describe from theory why it happens. Contrast that to all Ganzfield proponents. They have no theory that explains it, no idea why it happens in their opinion sometimes and not others.


No, it's actually quite a good example. I don't know of how many countless chemists have made something really fascinating, and haven't been able to replicate it ever since, because some sort of fluke happened. Eventually it usually does get rediscovered though. It just takes time. Sure, after the fact you the mechanism, so it looks obvious (retrofitting), but at the time, you're totally blind to what is going on in that flask. Trust me, lack of analytical is the most frustrating thing on the planet, and half the time I'm working with really limited instrumentation (usually just infrared, because it's cheap, though I do manage to get some NMR spectra taken from time to time.) I'm talking about even before that, when scientists were still debating what was going on inside atoms. Science had no idea what sort of mechanisms were at play with things. What they did know was that they had an observable phenomenon.

As for theory, actually, there are a lot of pretty good theories out there. The problem is they are generally still pretty nebulous, and haven't come up with any big testable predictions yet. That's why we need more research. We know a LOT of variables that correlate with better psi performance. I do agree there are still many unknowns.

We are not a poor science, but we are still sort of in the protoscience stage. If we got shunted even a fraction of the grants that go to physics or chemistry or psychology, I'm sure we'd come up with some answers pretty fast.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20






Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby wjbeaty » 29 Mar 2010, 09:43

really? wrote:If there were results clearly above chance then more research would have been conducted.


Blatantly fallacious reasoning. When pointed to results clearly above chance, the disbeliever can refuse to actually read the results, and justify their refusal by saying the above. But more often they'll honestly investigate, and then say: "Perhaps it's a result of fraud, or perhaps there must have been some mistake which still haven't been found."

And if the Wright Brothers really had built a flying machine, then would not the Scientific American have sent reporters to witness their flights? Instead they refused, and justified it thus:
"If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted in a not very remote part of the country, on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter, who, it is well known, comes down the chimney when the door is locked in his face--even if he has to scale a fifteen-story sky-scraper to do so-- would not have ascertained all about them and published them broadcast long ago? "

The disbelievers don't get it: disbelief is an emotional bias. Our certainty regarding anomalies will halt all fair investigation of evidence no matter how solid. (Reporters refused to witness the Wright Bros flights on the grounds that reporters hadn't been witnessing them. They apparently saw nothing wrong with this logic.)

Yet wouldn't we expect that widespread PSI-disbelief would lack a united front? Wouldn't a few scientist-type scoffers bother to give a fair investigation, and become swayed by strong evidence? Yet this didn't happen in the Wrights' case. Refusal to investigate leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
-----------------------------------------------
'Skeptic' does not mean scoffer
'Skeptic' does not mean debunker
'Skeptic' does not mean csicop member
'Skeptic' does not mean Atheist
'Skeptic' does not mean cynic
'Skeptic' does not mean woo-woo-hater
'Skeptic' does not mean anti-paranormalist
'Skeptic' does not even mean self-declared Skeptic
((((((((((((( ( (O) ) )))))))))))))
Bill Beaty Science Hobbyist
billb|eskimo com http://amasci.com/wclose/
User avatar
wjbeaty
 
Posts: 38
Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 17:59
Location: Seattle, U of Washington

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby Nostradamus » 29 Mar 2010, 10:37

sheep-goat is only one of them, which, Nostradamus, actually has nothing to do with tightness of controls, but belief of the participants

I know that. I pointed out that one was an excuse to explain the other, not that they are related.

I should also point out that I made the comment before you posted your definitions in another thread.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 29 Mar 2010, 10:49

Well put, wjbeaty. I did not know that about the Wright Brothers, another neat tidbit example of people they laughed at before they became famous. On that note, isn't that what all those silly inspirational feel good movies are about? Doing the thing that everyone says is impossible, against all odds, going against the grain to achieve something great? I have chosen to be a parapsychologist just on that.

I did also want to clarify a point I made earlier before I gets misinterpreted. It may seem like I was implying that the lack of results in parapsych is due to the lack of resources. Not totally true. It would certainly help to have more labs doing more varieties of research, though. But also, a lot of times, stuff gets done in science because some large agency goes, "Here's a bunch of money. Put a man on the moon ready set go," or whatever target they feel is important. But also look at the examples of "Here's a bunch of money; cure cancer." Some problems are just more difficult to solve than others, and throwing more money at the problem may or may not make it go away.

Even if some rich eccentric millionaire went "I have 5 million dollars for five labs to work together, collaborating proponents with skeptics in order to run 1000 Ganzfeld trials using an identical procedure," I'm not sure that would change anything. If it came out positive, the skeptics would most likely declare that there must have been a systematic flaw, and if it came out at chance, probably a bunch of parapsychologists would leave the field, but the ones that already believe psi is real, would keep on researching psi. We've already ran nearly 7,000 Ganzfeld experiments, giving an overall hit rate of 3% above chance (3% is nothing to sneeze at, especially considering all the crappy studies included in that lot. Would you like to drink a 3% solution of potassium cyanide?). And that's just ONE type of psi experiment. There are dozens of types of psi experiments already published that almost no one knows about.

I think right now parapsychologists are easing off, regrouping, and looking for what makes for a good psi experiment. When we have a good consensus as to what that is, we'll agree on conditions, and run it, and hope for the best. I think they want to make extra super sure that it'll succeed, because a high-profile failure would seriously cripple the field and probably render it a pseudoscience for good.

@Nostradamus - Yeah I know, I was trying to clarify, not talk down. Intonation doesn't work well on the internet. I decided to write that post not just because of that but because I've read people refer to it in a lot of posts.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby ciscop » 30 Mar 2010, 01:58

NucleicAcid wrote:Parapsychology is a true science and not a pseudoscience as a fact because it uses the scientific method in the exact same fashion as any other 'conventional science.' Parapsychology is, by definition of the word, a science.

While directly testing the existence psi has had some rough spots over the years, it is by and large, if you look at the whole picture, rather repeatable. It could be more solid, but it's far from flimsy. However, we are always getting closer to certain predictor variables and correlates of psi. These correlations, such as sheep-goat effects and the better performance of meditators vs non-meditators, are becoming increasingly replicable, meaning we are getting closer to really understanding how psi works and how to harness it. Which is really the most important thing.



where did you get the info about the performance of meditators vs nonmeditators
seems interesting
i would like to read the article if possible

Also.. Psi seems to ve more present
when the testees are MAGICIANS like Banachek, Edwards, Uri Geller and Gerard Sinehi.
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: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 30 Mar 2010, 02:19

I don't have the data about meditators vs nonmeditators offhand, but with my own studies, I've definitely found that people that specifically practice psi (which usually also includes meditation as part of the training) outperform people who do have not practiced psi, by a large margin (E.g. at psychokinesis tasks, most people not familiar with PK cannot perform the task beyond chance at all, while people practiced in PK can elicit effects at will with some degree of control). This is hardly a surprise; we would not expect a college student that plays backyard hoops on the weekend to perform at the level of a collegiate basketball player.

This may partially explain some of the effect seen where it seems like only "special" people can perform psi abilities. Because the idea of actively harnessing psi is a bit of an obscure notion, not a lot of people have actively practiced it, so when you compare those individuals against average Joe's, clearly there is a difference.

However, your statement, which seems to imply that psi only appears when tricksters are around, is not well founded. The vast majority of the contributions to psi experiments comes from people that do not claim to utilize psychic abilities, though some do report intuitive moments or some paranormal phenomena. We're talking tens of thousands of regular folks, not a dozen 'testees' with dubious credentials.

With regards to high-profile 'psychic entertainers,' I do not doubt that Uri Geller, John Edwards, Sylvia Brown, (and I haven't heard of Gerard Sinehi or Banachek) have some natural psi talent (All humans that have subjective consciousness have psi potential). However, they all heavily use magic tricks, mentalism, cold-reading, and other trickery as part of their 'talent,' which more than obfuscates anything they might be doing by means of psi, if any at all.

ETA: Here is an article that talks a bit about mechanisms and psi-conducive conditions: http://www.integral-inquiry.com/docs/PsiFavorableConditions.doc. I think the general notion of the Ganzfeld state indicates that being calm, with a lower stress level, is conducive to psi. And obviously, people who meditate more often can achieve this state more readily at will.

Cognitive quietude. We have seen that effective psi functioning can occur under conditions of bodily and emotional quietude. From this, it might be inferred that cognitive quietude—a stilling of the thought ripples that can disturb a quiet, tranquil mind, such as the condition that can accompany meditation—also might be psi-favorable. This inference that meditation might be psi-conducive is supported by findings that meditation tends to be accompanied by reduced muscular tension and reduced autonomic (sympathetic) arousal, and also by traditional beliefs and anecdotal observations that paranormal events (e.g., the so-called siddhis or paranormal powers described in yogic and other spiritual and wisdom traditions) may occur spontaneously at certain stages of meditative practice (see Kanthamani, 1971; Smith, 1966; Tennisons & Lustig, 1962; von Grunebaum, 1966). With these possibilities in mind, Honorton (1977) reviewed 16 experimental studies of psi performance during or immediately following meditation and found that 9 of the 16 studies yielded significance evidence for psi (in both receptive [ESP] and active [PK] forms). A later review—focusing on the possible role of meditation in psychokinesis performance—found that results of all but one of eight studies were consistent with the expectation that the practice of meditation would be favorable to the occurrence of psychokinetic effects (Braud, 1989).


I'll try to dig up some more recent research. My research partner just collected and has begun to organize about 8gb of research in pdf form and the like :shock: He's quite thorough.
Last edited by NucleicAcid on 30 Mar 2010, 02:25, edited 1 time in total.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby ciscop » 30 Mar 2010, 02:23

what??
you are talking PK?
like moving objects with the mind?

i have never seen anybody capable of doing it for real
have you?
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: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 30 Mar 2010, 02:36

Yes, I believe so. Either psychokinesis is a real effect, or there has been one really long, continuous chain of strange coincidences of stable objects moving on their own in conjunction with someone trying to achieve exactly that effect with their mental state.

The first time I attempted PK, I tried to knock down a piece of paper rolled into a tube. I made sure the heat was off and I locked myself in my computer room. I sat there for about 20 minutes staring at this thing, and then it fell over. I've refined the technique a bit since then, though I haven't practiced in a while because I haven't had time. I used to be able to really control the psi wheel - it's sort of like a pinwheel, just search for it (there are also lots of fake videos out there too, and ones that there is no PK effect and merely wind or drafts going on)- really well, in ways that can't be explained by drafts or convection (E.g. I'll have someone watch and call out "Left...okay now stop it....now right" and follow it pretty well).

I have seen dumbbells set on their end fall over after being left stationary for several hours to make sure they are stable. Repeatedly.

One of the most talented people on the net with regards to (legitimate) PK is a user by the name of ShirakOmegaX. I realize a video is just a video and ALL of this could be faked. But I've Skyped with him and he's been able to influence sensitive equipment on MY end...so yeah, I know no manner of magic trick that can affect someone in the US from Australia. So just watch it with an open mind and a grain of salt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHDgMWBCl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxKgtdtX6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf6ksHtzWNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzAlwFse7kg

I'm currently trying to come up with neat ways to test macro-PK in the lab.

Note that if you end up hopping around YouTube, 80% of the videos are going to be fake. The ones I have a high degree of confidence that they aren't tricks are ShirakOmegaX, mindfreak419666 , Peabrain, Not Important, Machina labs, Macbethlondon, Darryl Sloan, and that's about it right now.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby ciscop » 30 Mar 2010, 08:23

thanks for sharing the youtube videos
yeah.. i didnt take them as conclusive nor as evidence
but i guess they were ok
not the worst i have seen nor the best

hey
im curious, what´s the thing that guy did over the internet in your house?
what happened?
was it a noise of wood ?
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: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 30 Mar 2010, 08:56

Hahaha I know what you're talking about, and no, it was not a noise of wood :-P

What I have is a metal box with a geiger counter bolted to the bottom and a piece of Uranium Oxide fixed to a rail, so it can slide and be locked at a fixed distance. The geiger counter interfaces with my computer. I have written a program that animates a hot air balloon that goes up or down depending on how many counts the geiger counter is detecting, relative to its baseline (e.g. it will take a baseline for 60 seconds, then will run for 60 seconds). The first try was just a practice run, he did not achieve significance, but the second run he got a score which roughly corresponds to a p value of .05, right on the edge of signifiance. We're running more trials, this was mostly for testing purposes at the time. One of my friends contributed 16 runs, corresponding to an approximate p = .01.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby ciscop » 30 Mar 2010, 14:58

you build up a machine?
thats pretty impressive
good luck with your reserch
i hope you find something cool
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: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby really? » 30 Mar 2010, 21:54

NucleicAcid wrote:Yes, I believe so. Either psychokinesis is a real effect, or there has been one really long, continuous chain of strange coincidences of stable objects moving on their own in conjunction with someone trying to achieve exactly that effect with their mental state.

That may be just it coincidences

NucleicAcid wrote:The first time I attempted PK, I tried to knock down a piece of paper rolled into a tube. I made sure the heat was off and I locked myself in my computer room. I sat there for about 20 minutes staring at this thing, and then it fell over. I've refined the technique a bit since then, though I haven't practiced in a while because I haven't had time. I used to be able to really control the psi wheel - it's sort of like a pinwheel, just search for it (there are also lots of fake videos out there too, and ones that there is no PK effect and merely wind or drafts going on)- really well, in ways that can't be explained by drafts or convection (E.g. I'll have someone watch and call out "Left...okay now stop it....now right" and follow it pretty well).
I have seen dumbbells set on their end fall over after being left stationary for several hours to make sure they are stable. Repeatedly.


Did you eliminate the possibility minute vibrations eventually made the paper tube fall over. The same for dumbbells.
In place of the psi wheel purchase a Crookes Radiometer. Image Image
Let's see how well you can move the vanes in this device.


NucleicAcid wrote:One of the most talented people on the net with regards to (legitimate) PK is a user by the name of ShirakOmegaX. I realize a video is just a video and ALL of this could be faked. But I've Skyped with him and he's been able to influence sensitive equipment on MY end...so yeah, I know no manner of magic trick that can affect someone in the US from Australia. So just watch it with an open mind and a grain of salt:

Do you see anything wrong with this line of thinking of your's ?
In the videos ShirakOmegaX shows his ability by moving small mass objects with his mind in close proximity. He can also do the same according to you over a distance of up to 10 thousands miles [I don't know where you live]. If he can actually do what he claims then he should be able to move objects of considerably more mass in close proximity to himself and objects much further away would necessarily be of a smaller mass. All the objects are small in mass. What does that suggest to you as to what's really going on ?


NucleicAcid wrote:I'm currently trying to come up with neat ways to test macro-PK in the lab.

Good luck. I'd really like to see a demo of real PK.

NucleicAcid wrote:Note that if you end up hopping around YouTube, 80% of the videos are going to be fake. The ones I have a high degree of confidence that they aren't tricks are ShirakOmegaX, mindfreak419666 , Peabrain, Not Important, Machina labs, Macbethlondon, Darryl Sloan, and that's about it right now.

How did you come up with a figure of 80 % ? I'll take a stab you are guessing. Am I right ?

P.S. I still stand by what I said earlier in this thread about the trouble with meta-analysis and psi disappearing when controls are tightened.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 31 Mar 2010, 01:19

Yes, I just said it may be coincidences, that is because I have an extremely rational and logical mind. I have to accept all possibilities and weigh each claim based on evidence, not subjectivity or opinion. However, you appear to lack the ability to even consider psi, even hypothetically.

When doing PK tests, I go out of my way to make sure extraneous effects cannot disturb the system. If I find out after the fact that it may have even had the slightest external influence, I rule that experiment inconclusive. Despite all of this, I still have a large body of evidence that cannot be explained by mundane reasoning.

I've done test comparisons with psiwheels and Crookes Radiometers, as have others. Psi wheels do not move based on light hitting them, this has been thoroughly tested. Conversely, ShirakOmegaX has succeeded in slowing down a Crookes radiometer in a constant light source. We have found out that convective currents can make the psi wheel spin, which is why putting your hands right next to the psi wheel is looked down upon, and barriers such as glass jars are recommended (though for purely psychological reasons, this adds a level of mental difficulty). I am also a psychology student and I know all about pseudocausal attribution (magical thinking, the idea that people make associations of cause and effect when there isn't any, such as a light blowing out when someone sneezes, one may incorrectly conclude that sneezing may very rarely cause lights to blow out). I am a scientist. I control for extraneous variables.

I see nothing wrong with my line of thinking. Nonlocality of quantum effects has been proven over and over again. Psi effects have already been demonstrated not to succumb to 1/r^2 reduction over distance. In fact, it would appear that the mass of the object has very little bearing on how much "PK" it takes to move it (if you can even quantify it). It seems to depend much more strongly on how much the mind 'thinks' it can influence the object. For example, I have set up experiments in such a way that they LOOK very unstable, but in fact are extremely resistant to vibration, wind, etc. I then brought in my friend who is really talented at PK, did not tell him anything about the setup, other than 'it's easy to knock it over,' and he succeeded in knocking it over (this experiment was a weight sitting on a medicine bottle). Do some research on Macro-PK. Pamela Rae Heath has written some good books on it. I also recommend The Limits of Influence. It covers exactly why psychics can't levitate cars, etc.

I just showed several videos of PK. Short of going to your house and doing it right in front of you, you're not going to see a real demo from anyone else. Why don't you give it a shot yourself? Mindfreak started off as a hardened skeptic, tried PK himself, realized he could in fact do it, and now is a believer and makes PK videos himself. He still maintains a healthy skeptical attitude (like myself) and likes debunking the fake videos out there (as do myself). Like I said, there are many videos out there that appear to show extremely rigorous controls, but are totally fake. No amount of video evidence will be safe from claims of fraud. That's what scientific journals and replication of experiments are for.

I came up with the 80% number as a rough figure as the number of users that produce legitimate videos that I have seen, versus the number of users that produce fake videos that I have seen. I should clarify that I primarily mean videos that have some degree of popularity. This also is reflected with the relative rate at which videos pop up by Youtube suggestions. 80% is the low end, and is probably a lot higher. Either way, EASILY most of the users with "PK" videos are producing fakes. (There is likely a large number of videos that people have made themselves doing PK or thinking they are doing PK, but these do not have enough popularity to come up within most of the videos that pop up on my sidebar.) If you REALLY want, I can go and find out what the users are and their relative hit rates. But only because that information might be useful to me in the future.

As for your last comment, I will regard this as a simple myth/urban legend until you provide evidence in the form of published studies that show this specific effect. Otherwise, I will stand by the studies published on the Autoganzfeld series, as well as double-blind controlled studies on EEG correlations, the sense of being stared at, and others. I have evidence for my claim. You do not. (Nota bene: Tight controls ARE NOT the same as conditions that are not psi-conducive. Psi is difficult to isolate, there is no argument about that. But that does not mean it disappears when the CONTROLS are tightened, this is a very pervasive, but still very false, myth).

Seriously. I get scolded by skeptics when I make claims that aren't supported by evidence. You are not exempt, either. (especially when I PROVIDE positive evidence in the first place)

Putting it another way, prominent parapsychologist and skeptic, Richard Wiseman, agrees that there is an effect:

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0jgSDfbcA


This is an old complaint that has been quashed again and again. This is old news. Anyone who has read the literature thoroughly agrees: There is an effect that does not go away when tighter controls are applied. The only debate is whether or not this evidence provided conclusive proof that psi exists.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby ciscop » 31 Mar 2010, 03:29

well
i just hope someday
it can be proven beyond chance

the claim is so extraordinary, it needs extraordinary data to confirm is validity

but right now as it is
it isnt conclusive :-s

so any other studies you want to post that support parapsychology?
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: "Parapsychology is a pseudoscience"

Postby NucleicAcid » 31 Mar 2010, 04:30

I have a bunch, but most of them are from the Journal of Parapsychology and similar journals, which you need some sort of subscription for. If you have any sort of access to an academic database, like Elsevier, through your school or what not, that will generally get you in. Some libraries might carry it, and if they don't, they are usually willing to import them from a library that does have them, for a small fee.

There are also literally thousands of papers out there, which is why I like to stick to the few big ones that are most rigorous and relevant. If you are interested in just gobs and gobs of large-scale studies, I highly suggest Entangled Minds by Dean Radin (you can rent it from almost any public library). It comes across as a tiny bit apologetic, but Radin has dealt with a lot of harsh criticism over the years. And the science is solid. He talks very in-depth about controls. The field of parapsychology has known for at least a hundred years that the primary types of threats to internal validity are sensory leakage and fraud, and have been controlling against those strongly from the get-go. A century of constructive criticism has led parapsychology to constantly refine their methods, pretty much to the point of air-tightness. Your typical parapsychology experiment, whether it be Ganzfeld, feeling of being stared at, EEG correlation, etc, isolates the subjects on opposite sides of a building in a sound-proof, electromagnetically shielded vault (more or less, don't worry, the subjects can get out if they need to :-P).

People think of psi experiments as this:
Image

In reality, they look like this:
Image
(that's a standard EEG lab)
Except parapsychology labs are much more comfortably furnished, with plants, artwork, etc, so it actually feels like a room, rather than a laboratory. People feel much more comfortable when they don't feel like a guinea pig in a stark white room :)
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest