Straight Talk: The Ganzfeld (Advocates & Skeptics only)

[ProfWag]

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

[craig weiler]

[Arouet]

[Twain Shakespeare]

I see there are at least two people who I need never explain statistics too, or confirmation bias either, for that matter. Thanks Arouet and Ice.

[_Ice_Ages_14_Aces_]

[craig weiler]

Ok, this is sloppy, but here is a list of ganzfeld studies from The Journal of Parapsychology Vol, 65, September 2001 (pp. 000-000)
I cut and pasted from a pdf. I can't turn this into a table so this will just have to do.
I hope this helps

UPDATING THE GANZFELD DATABASE 4
Table 1
Number of Trials, z Score, Effect Size (ES), Hit Rate, and Standardness Rating for Each Study in the Updated
Ganzfeld Database (arranged in order of decreasing Standardness).
Study Trials z score ES Hit Rate% Standardness
Bierman et al. (1993) (Series I) 50 0.03 0.00 26.0 7.00
Bierman et al. (1993) (Series II) 50 -0.30 - 0.04 24.0 7.00
Broughton & Alexander (1997) (First Timers Series 1) a 50 -0.30 -0.04 24.0 7.00
Broughton & Alexander (1997) (First Timers Series 2) a 50 -1.33 -0.19 18.0 7.00
Broughton & Alexander (1997) (Emotionally Close Series) a 51 1.81 0.25 37.3 7.00
Dalton (1994) 29 1.76 0.33 41.4 7.00
*Dalton (1997) 128 5.20 0.46 46.9 7.00
Morris et al. (1993) (Cunningham Study) 32 1.78 0.31 40.6 7.00
*Alexander & Broughton (1999) 50 1.60 0.23 36.0 6.67
Broughton & Alexander (1997) (Clairvoyance Series) a 50 -0.64 -0.09 22.0 6.67
Broughton & Alexander (1997) (General Series) a 8 0.46 0.16 37.5 6.67
Kanthamani & Broughton (1994) (Series 3) 40 -0.91 -0.14 20.0 6.67
Kanthamani & Broughton (1994) (Series 4) 65 2.01 0.25 36.9 6.67
Parker et al. (1997) (Study 2)b 30 1.25 0.23 36.7 6.67
Parker et al. (1997) (Study 3)b 30 1.25 0.23 36.7 6.67
*Parker & Westerlund (1998) (Study 4) 30 2.40 0.44 46.7 6.67
*Parker & Westerlund (1998) (Study 5) 30 1.25 0.23 36.7 6.67
Kanthamani & Palmer (1993) 22 -2.17 - 0.46 9.1 6.33
Morris et al. (1995) 97 1. 67 0.17 33.0 6.33
Kanthamani & Broughton (1994) (Series 8) 50 0.03 0.00 26.0 6.00
Morris et al. (1993) (McAlpine Study) 32 - 0.17 -0.03 25.0 6.00
Stanford & Frank (1991) 58 -1.24 -0.16 19.0d 5.67
Kanthamani & Broughton (1994) (Series 7) 46 0.03 0.00 26.1 5.33
McDonough et al. (1994) 20 1.02 0.23 30.0 5.33
Parker et al. (1997) (Study 1)b 30 -0.83 -0.15 20.0 5.33
Williams et al. (1994) 42 -2.30 -0.35 11.9 5.33
*Wezelman et al. (1997) 32 2.15 0.38 43.8 4.67
Bierman (1995) (Series III) 40 1.94 0.31 40.0 4.33
Bierman (1995) Series IV 36 1.33 0.22 36.1 4.33
*Symmons & Morris (1997) 51 2.97 0.42 45.1 4.00
*Wezelman & Bierman (1997) (Series IV) 32 -1.45 0.08 30.0 d 3.67
Kanthamani & Broughton (1992) (Series 6a)c 20 -0.46 -0.10 25.0 d 3.33
*Parker & Westerlund (1998) (Serial Study) 30 -0.49 -0.09 23.0 d 3.33
*Wezelman & Bierman (1997) (Series V) 40 -0.91 -0.14 20.0 3.00
*Wezelman & Bierman (1997) (Series VI) 40 -0.15 -0.02 25.0 3.00
Kanthamani et al. (1988) (Series 5a)c 4 0.22 0.11 50.0 2.67
Kanthamani et al. (1988) (Series 5b)c 10 -2.06 -0.65 10.0 d 2.67
Willin (1996a) 100 -0.33 -0.03 24.0 1.33
Willin (1996b) 16 - 0.24 -0.06 25.0 1.33
Note *Asterisks denote studies added to Milton and Wiseman (1999).
a Cited as Broughton and Alexander (1996) in Milton and Wiseman (1999).
b Cited as Johansson and Parker (1995) in Milton and Wiseman (1999).
c Series summarized and numbered in Kanthamani and Broughton (1994).
d Hit rate not reported. Estimated from z score.
successful replication would still be considered standard

[Arouet]

You've forgotten the biases in calcualting the statistics.

[craig weiler]

I just pasted it from a pdf as I said. I personally did no calculations.

Feel free to discover what sort of bias so many different researchers can have that all yield such similar results. These studies have been picked over for 30 years with an intense focus on finding this so called bias, so if you can do it, you'll be the first. It looks to me as if you'll find any excuse to explain away the data.

I mean, seriously, this data agrees with hundreds of years of observed psi, 75% of the U.S. population believes in some form of psi and 50% report having some sort of psychic experience, the staring studies confirm this and a few others. Telepathy is not something exotic and unheard of, so what's the big deal if researchers actually find it?

[Arouet]

[craig weiler]

I don't get the whole file drawer thing. Even if a few unpublished studies exist, they are always going to be a small minority of the total. Because psi studies are two tailed, all you have to figure out is how many unsuccessful trials you would need to nullify the results. That seems pretty straightforward. I am deeply suspicious of the skeptic attitude that everything has to be thrown into question all the time no matter how basic when it applies to psi. This smacks of radicalism.

If you want more parapsychological science, all you have to do is accept the science that has already been done so that everyone can move on. As long as this excessive nitpicking goes on, the field will remain stagnant.

[Arouet]

[craig weiler]

Jessica Utts, a PhD statistician, put this all to bed years ago, but skeptics ignore her, probably because she MUST be biased since she sided with the parapsychologists. (God forbid the people who are actually doing the work should know more than their biased critics.)

You've seen the studies. The results remain basically the same regardless of study quality. This effectively rules out small biases as a reason for the results.

And you're not skeptical of the skeptics. Just because someone claims that there is a file drawer problem doesn't mean that they're right. You need to establish that first before you drag out that argument. Never underestimate skeptic bias. It's much worse than anything the parapsychologists have done and there is considerable proof of this.

[Arouet]