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

Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Discussions about Psychics and Psychic Phenomena, Extra Sensory Perception, Telepathy, Psi, Clairvoyancy, 6th Sense, Psychokinesis, etc.

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby craig weiler » 07 Sep 2011, 02:34

Bias is not everywhere, it is heavily on the skeptic side. There is Randi cheating with Zibarov, Wiseman cheating on the autoganzfeld

The whole Gauquelin mess and cover up that drove the open minded skeptics out of CSICOP.

The messy and badly done hatchet job on the Girl with the X-Ray eyes.

Wiseman's hatchet job on Sheldrake's dog study where he used the statements of 2 broadcasters in his calculations and made up extra rules.
Randi's outright lie about his own dog study, which never actually happened.

Marks and Cowell's sloppy staring study that Sheldrake quickly evicerated.

Hyman's sloppy and overly dramatic critique of the Afterlife Experiments.

More recently, Alcock's wild re-imagining of the history of parapsychology followed by a nonsensical critique of Daryl Bem's latest presentiment study.

You won't find anything remotely this bad on the parapsychology side of the argument.
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: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby Arouet » 07 Sep 2011, 03:34

craig weiler wrote:Bias is not everywhere, it is heavily on the skeptic side. There is Randi cheating with Zibarov, Wiseman cheating on the autoganzfeld


We don't get very far when taking this point of view. We all have bias. It is part of how were are hardwired. Confirmation bias affects us all. We have to learn to recognize it and hopefully get past it. But that's why having discussions between different points of view is often the best way to figure out the weak points.

The whole Gauquelin mess and cover up that drove the open minded skeptics out of CSICOP.

The messy and badly done hatchet job on the Girl with the X-Ray eyes.

Wiseman's hatchet job on Sheldrake's dog study where he used the statements of 2 broadcasters in his calculations and made up extra rules.
Randi's outright lie about his own dog study, which never actually happened.

Marks and Cowell's sloppy staring study that Sheldrake quickly evicerated.

Hyman's sloppy and overly dramatic critique of the Afterlife Experiments.

More recently, Alcock's wild re-imagining of the history of parapsychology followed by a nonsensical critique of Daryl Bem's latest presentiment study.

You won't find anything remotely this bad on the parapsychology side of the argument.


I guess we can go through those cases one by one. Here's a prediction: there will be bias found on all sides, and good and bad things done by all the participants.

Take the Bem/Hyman exchange: the Radin/Bem response was filled with personal attacks. And just calling Hyman's arguments nonsensical is completely biased. Hyman is an intelligent person who raised some problems that he thought were there. Bem/Radin disagreed. I don't think either were spouting nonsense. These are difficult questions - especially the stats! Apparently there was no statistician in the peer review for Bem's report. Unforgivable given the subject matter.

The Wagenmester (sp? I always forget how to spell the name) critique that Hyman referred to was not nonsensical. It applied a Bayesian approach whcih is not non-sensical. It may be the best method or not, but we don't get very far when we just dismiss the other side out of hand.

There is no need to treat this debate as US vs. THEM. It doesn't help figure out what's going on.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 07 Sep 2011, 07:53

Arouet wrote:You've forgotten the biases in calcualting the statistics.


Such as????

In short, this field is a mess. What they really need to do is start over with the very best protocol they 've come up with, set up a registry to announce studies, and start from scratch. Tedious, I know, but probably necessary. Then there needs to be some tight work done on the stats and an attempt among statisticians (not just skeptics and parapsychologists) for the proper stat methods to use.


Actually, if you look at the history of the Ganzfeld, you will clearly see its methodology has profoundly improved in a chronological order and Monica Harris, along with Robert Rosenthal (A world-renowned expert in methodology and meta-analysis) critiqued the 85 MA and they both concluded that something interesting was going on.

"The Parapsychological Association should immediately set up an online registry for parapsychological experiments of all kinds. This is trivially easy to do and would eliminate the file drawer question entirely."

In 1975, the Parapsychological Association officers adopted a policy opposing the file-drawer problem, so both positive and negative findings have been reported at the Parapsychological Association's anuual mettings and in its affiliated publications for over nearly 4 decades. Hey, nice thinking!

Remember the problem with small biases? Well, they can add up.


Yes, they can. However (as I said before) experimenter bias, as well as bias in statistical analyses, is not a plausible explanation. The Ganzfeld studies since 1983 were done under double-blind, sensory-isolated, and automated (computer-controlled) conditions, so the possibility of experimenter bias, the lack of negative studies, and flaws have been ruled out. In my opinion, the proper way to use meta-analyses is to combined the results of independent, homogeneous studies

Are the studies homogeneous and done independently? Check.

Are the ganzfeld meta-analyses combined with the standard criteria (Images and videos) instead of nonstandard (ex. musical targets, etc.)? Check.

Despite a cetnury of work, due to lack of budgets for this work the body of work is still relatively small.


1974-2004 meta-analysis: 3,145 independent ganzfeld sessions, 1008 hits (32%) z=9.11113, p<0.00000000000001 Evidence: Amazing!

Andrew Endersby: (6,700) 1922.9 hits (28.7%) z=6.9547, p=0.00000000001 Evidence: Amazing!

Ersby (JREF): (2854) 782 hits (27.4%) z=2.93955, P=0.00328 Evidence: Good

All combined: (12,699) 3,712 hits (29%) z=10.9998, p<0.0000000000001) Evidence: Amazing!

So, is a total of 12,699 independent ganzfeld sessions not good enough for you??????
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby craig weiler » 07 Sep 2011, 08:11

Ice Age is clearly better at this than me. Thank you!! :D

Arouet: It looks like every single last objection you could possibly make has been dealt with. Now what?
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: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2011, 09:43

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:So, is a total of 12,699 independent ganzfeld sessions not good enough for you??????

The bias here is that your statement appears to show that 12,699 ganzfield sessions were successful. Which is fine, but you didn't mention the failures.
"...more than half of the ganzfeld studies included in the meta-analysis yielded outcomes whose significance falls short of the conventional .05 level."
'Selective Reporting' (http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/psy1.html)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby craig weiler » 07 Sep 2011, 10:09

Profwag,
It includes all the successes and failures. That's basic. Ganzfeld 101.

You don't have a successful statistical experiment unless you're counting everything that applies. That's why the file drawer problem is so important.

That's why the ganzfeld is a successful experiment.
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: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 07 Sep 2011, 10:54

ProfWag,

There is no selective reporting in my statistical analyses. I added all the successful sessions as well as the unsuccessful ones. Furthermore, I statistically analyzed them using two-tailed instead of one-tailed (Which Ersby incorrectly used)

I'm pretty there are more sessions than the one I mentioned here btw.....
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2011, 10:55

craig weiler wrote:Profwag,
It includes all the successes and failures. That's basic. Ganzfeld 101.

You don't have a successful statistical experiment unless you're counting everything that applies. That's why the file drawer problem is so important.

That's why the ganzfeld is a successful experiment.

You consider more than half of the experiments a failure a successful experiment? If 100 people flip 100 coins and 45 of them are heads 55% of the time and the success is reported as "45 people flip heads 55% of the time--statistical significance!", then this is actually incorrect since 55 people could have reported heads 50% or less. If the second half is not reported, the the bias lies in incomplete data as overall, the significance is actually a coincidence or not a statistically significant event.
Having said that, we really don't know where Ice gets his/her numbers since it's not referenced. Wouldn't you like to see where the information comes from or do you just believe him/her because you agree with the information submitted? How does the casual reader to our lovely forum know whom to trust?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2011, 10:57

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:ProfWag,

There is no selective reporting in my statistical analyses. I added all the successful sessions as well as the unsuccessful ones. Furthermore, I statistically analyzed them using two-tailed instead of one-tailed (Which Ersby incorrectly used)

I'm pretty there are more sessions than the one I mentioned here btw.....

Thank you for clarifying. Did you personally collect the data or do you have a reference to where you obtained the data?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 07 Sep 2011, 11:05

ProfWag,

Reference

Even though I combined the result of the 3 studies, I suspect Ersby's Meta-Analysis to be seriously flawed since he trimmed out the outliers, which in proper statistics, you are not supposed to do....
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2011, 11:07

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:ProfWag,

Reference

Even though I combined the result of the 3 studies, I suspect Ersby's Meta-Analysis to be seriously flawed since he trimmed out the outliers, which in proper statistics, you are not supposed to do....

And your reference is...? :?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 07 Sep 2011, 11:46

1974-2004 MA: Entangled Minds, page 120 (Also published in Psychological Bulletin)

Andrew: Skeptic's Dictionary Ganzfeld

Ersby: JREF Forum (You can also see it on my previous post.)
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby _Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ » 07 Sep 2011, 11:48

1974-2004 MA: Entangled Minds, page 120 (Also published in Psychological Bulletin)

Andrew: Skeptic's Dictionary Ganzfeld

Ersby: JREF Forum (You can also see it on my previous post.)
User avatar
_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_
 
Posts: 69
Joined: 04 Sep 2011, 06:38

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby ProfWag » 07 Sep 2011, 19:11

_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_ wrote:1974-2004 MA: Entangled Minds, page 120 (Also published in Psychological Bulletin)

Andrew: Skeptic's Dictionary Ganzfeld

Ersby: JREF Forum (You can also see it on my previous post.)

Thank you. I will review. (Though to start, I've never before seen a valid reference from the JREF Forum, but perhaps it'll be a good one.)
I've read EM and CU, and found no conclusive evidence in either one. The author is quite the believer in psi and I think his books were written more out of a way to profess his beliefs on others rather than by just looking at the conclusions objectively (my opinion only based on my "gut instinct" while reviewing his books), but will be happy to look them over again.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

Postby Craig Browning » 07 Sep 2011, 20:54

:lol: I just love watching smart people masturbate :lol:

Then again, I get really turned on when I see someone using a very matter of fact way of getting to the point, using the type of stats and 'scientific' data that keeps getting insisted upon, that really can prove things "wrong" when it comes to the traditional skeptic's position. Craig, you're a god-send! (I do mean you, not me) I can't speak geekenise and you do it exceptionally well. But, this is a factor that skeptics love to exploit as well; the general fact that most people in the Psychic world aren't brainiacs wired towards anal-retentive logic. The result ends up being the "new ager" giving up and leaving the "discussion" feeling devastated by the assholes that will then gloat about the torment and beating they just rendered to "yet another woo woo idiot" as some would say.

I won't even pretend to understand all this mathematic maneuvering; while a Numerologist, this stuff is pure Greek to me (it's ok, you can chuckle if you get the pun there); in layman's logic if someone can prove a thing more than 55% of the time, it's probably got some validity, but when you start adding in all the other jargon and routes of travel you're opening a can of worms in which evil and orneriness can come into play (like I said, statistics can and frequently are generated in ways that make the paying side happy).

Anywho, just wanted to thank you all for the fun to and fro. :twisted:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

PreviousNext

Return to Psychic Phenomena / ESP / Telepathy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest